STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA

WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND

AVAILABILITY OF FOREST RESOURCES





Dissertation Submitted to
Central Department of Environmental Science,
Tribhuvan University
For the Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for Masters Degree in
Environmental Science





Submitted By
Akhanda Raj Upreti
Exam Roll No: 442
TU Regd. No: 5-2-33-620-2003

Central Department of Environment Science
Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal


November 2011

ii


LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION

This is to certify that Mr. Akhanda Raj Upreti has conducted this research entitled
Study of Handikhola Buffer Zone VDC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Relation with
Need and Availability of Forest Resources for partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the completion of Masters Degree in Environmental Science majoring in 'Wildlife
Management'. He had worked sufficiently well under my supervision and guidance.
This study work embodies candidates own work and is original. To the best of my
knowledge this report has not been submitted for any other degree.
I recommend this dissertation to be accepted and approved for the partial fulfillment of
Masters Degree in Environmental science.

Mr. Rajeswar Shrestha
Visiting Scholar
Central Department of Environment Science
Tribuvan University, Kirtipur
Former Joint Secretary, Department of Forests
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation

November 31, 2011

iii

DECLARATION


I, Akhanda Raj Upreti, hereby declare that this Dissertation entitled Study of
Handikhola Buffer Zone VDC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Relation with Need and
Availability of Forest Resorces is original work. Sources of information other than
my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work has
not been published or submitted elsewhere for any academic award.


Akhanda Raj Upreti
Central Department of Environmental Science
Tribhuvan University
Kirtipur, Kathmandu
November 31, 2011
iii

January 26, 2012
v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My heartfelt thanks and gratitude go to all those without whom this work would have
never reached its final stage. I express my in depth gratitude and indebtedness to my
supervisor Mr. Rajeswar Shrestha for his continuous encouragement and valuable
suggestions during the research period and the production of this dissertation. I would
like to thank Associate Prof. Dr. Kedar Rijal, Head, Central Department of
Environmental Science and Former Head, Prof. Dr. Umakanta Roy Yadav for their
support to carry out this study. I would also like to acknowledge the support and
mentorship provided by Resources Himalaya Foundation and Late Dr. Pralad Yonzon,
for his guidance and motivation.
This research work would not have been completed in this form without the generous
help of different persons of Handikhola VDC. Special thank goes to Mr. Bansi Gopal
Kandel (Chairman of Shree Chetana BZCF), Prem Prasad Lamichhane (Chairman of
Shree Janakalyan kalika BZCF), Bishal Lama (Office Assistant of Shree Janahit BZCF),
Tejraj Pandey (Office Assistant of Shree Janajagriti BZCF), Kushal Thing (Chairman of
Gauri Shanker BZCF), Bouddhajit Gongba (Chairman of Shree Manakamana BZCF),
Buddhi Lal Waiba (Office Assistant of Shree Lokhit BZCF), Kedar Karki (Forest Guard
of Shree Janajagriti BZCF), Shanker Bulun (Office assistant of Shree Janakalyan
BZCF) and Baliraj Gongba (Member of User Committee, Shree Manakamana BZCF). I
would also like to thank all the staff members of Library at CDES, TU; Central Library,
TU; Forest Survey and Research Office, DNPWC and Department of Forests for their
help in providing literatures, review papers and electronic peer reviewed papers.
I also extend my special thanks to all the friends for their active help and support. In
particular, I admire the help of my friends Nirina Khadgi, Suchita Shrestha, Aruna
Thapa, Deepak Baruwal and Ghanshyam Subedi for their helps during the field study. I
am indebted to my seniors Dhan Shrestha, Badri Ghimire and Bhuwan Dhakal for their
incredible support in diverse aspects of dissertation writing.
Finally yet vitally, I would like to utter my heartfelt gratitude and respect to my parents
and family members for their constant encouragement and support in each and every
step of my academic life.
Akhanda Raj Upreti
vi

ABSTRACT
This study was undertaken in Lokhit Buffer Zone User Committee of Handikhola VDC
of Parsa Wildlife Reserve so as to get acquainted with forest dependency, livelihood and
participatory conservation approach and the socioeconomic setting of the local people.
Seventy HHs were interviewed using structured and semi structured questionnaire, with
due consideration to the objectives of the study. Two hundred and five plots were laid
for vegetation survey including 41 plots (20x20 cm
2
) for tree species (DBH>10), 82
each for shrub stratum (DBH<10cm) and herb stratum (height<10cm) with plot size
5x5 m
2
and 1x1m
2
respectively.
The study showed that food insecurity was most prominent among Dalit and
Chepang/Magar HHs while Brahmin/Chhetri had the highest food availability given to
the greatest share of mean (0.722 ha/HH) and per capita (0.107 ha/HH) land holding as
well as less percentage of irrigated land (23.57%) Dalits and Chepang/Magar. Fuel
wood is the main source of energy for cooking while kerosene and electricity is used for
lighting. The mean fodder demand of HHs was 23.82tons/HH/year, varying on land
holding and livestock rearing. 92.86% of sampled HHs wholly or partially was
dependent on BZCFs for fuel wood while 30% of HHs relied on it causing significant
pressure on BZCF. Lokhit BZCF was under lower pressure than other community forest
while Janajagriti BZCF under highest in terms of average forest area cover per HH.
Altogether 98 plant species of trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers were recorded in the
study area comprising Terai Mixed Hardwood Forest and Sal Forest. Herb stratum was
found to have more diversity and less dominance index compared to the shrub and tree
stratum indicating the presence of few dominant species in shrub and tree stratum
which influenced the whole community by decreasing the evenness and diversity index.
There was large deficit of sustainable fodder supply from the community forest.
However, the sustainable fuel wood supply was in surplus. Total density of lopped tree
(46.34/ha) and the majority of cut stumps with girth size of <12 cm indicated the
unsustainable harvesting practices.
Key words: Buffer Zone, Forest Resources Demand and Supply, Livelihood

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Recommendation ii
Declaration iii
Letter of Approval iv
Acknowledgements v
Abstract vi
Table of contents vii
Acronyms xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Rationale of the Study 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study 4
1.4 Limitation of the Study 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Buffer Zone Programme 5
2.2 Livelihood and Conservation 5
2.3 Buffer Zone in the Context of Nepal 6
2.3.1 Development, Conservation Issues and Park-people conflict 7
2.3.2 Buffer Zone Community Forestry 8
2.4 Other pertinent researches 9
CHAPTER THREE: STUDY AREA
3.1 Parsa Wildlife Reserve 11
3.2 Handikhola Buffer Zone User Committee 12
CHAPTER FOUR: MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.1 Research Design 13
4.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey 13
4.1.2 Household Sampling Design and Sample size 14
4.1.3 Questionnaire Survey, Data Calculation and Analysis 15
4.2 Vegetation Survey 15
4.2.1 Sampling 15
4.2.2 Plot Design 16
4.3 Sampling Parameters and Methodology 17
4.4 Quantitative Analysis of Vegetation 17
viii

4.4.1 General Parameters 18
4.4.2 Volume and Biomass 19
4.4.3 Estimates of Annual and Sustainable Yield 19
4.4.4 Stand Size 21
4.4.5 Stocking 21
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULT
5.1 Socio-economic Survey and Household Wellbeing 22
5.1.1 Respondents 22
5.2 Socio-economic Status 23
5.2.1 Population Structure 23
5.2.2 Education 23
5.2.3 Access to Drinking Water and State of Sanitation 24
5.2.4 Access to Means of Information 25
5.2.5 Farm Size 26
5.2.6 Crop Production and Sufficiency 27
5.2.7 Livestock Holding and Fodder Consumption 29
5.2.8 Energy Sources 32
5.2.8.1 Fuel Wood 33
5.3 Buffer Zone Community Forest 35
5.3.1 Acquaintance with Buffer Zone Activity and Budget Allocation 36
5.3.2 Acquaintance with the Condition of the Buffer Zone Community
Forests 36
5.4 Wildlife 36
5.4.1 Status of Wildlife 36
5.4.2 Problem Caused by Wildlife 37
5.5 Vegetation Analysis 38
5.5.1 Tree Stratum 38
5.5.2 Shrub Stratum 40
5.5.3 Herb Stratum 42
5.5.4 Status of Forest 43
5.5.4.1 Biodiversity 43
5.5.4.2 Regeneration 43
5.5.4.3 Cut Stumps 44
5.5.4.4 Lopping 45
ix

5.5.5 Annual and Sustainable Yield 46
5.5.5.1 Volume and Biomass of Tree 46
5.5.5.2 Sustainable Yield of Forest Resources 48
5.5.5.3 Annual Yield of Green Fodder 49
5.5.5.4 Estimated Resource Demand and Supply 49
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION
6.1 Socio-economic Analysis 50
6.1.1 Demographic Characteristics and Education 50
6.1.2 Landholding, Agriculture and Food Sufficiency 51
6.1.3 Energy and Forest Resources: Dependency and Consumption 52
6.1.4 Buffer Zone Community Forests 53
6.2 Vegetation Analysis 53
6.2.1 Tree Stratum 53
6.2.2 Shrub Stratum 54
6.2.3 Herb Stratum 54
6.2.4 Sustainable Yield of Tree Species, and the Forest Status 55
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Conclusion 57
7.2 Recommendation 57
References 58-64
Annexes


x

List of Figures
Figure Page No.
Figure 1: Nested quadrate plot 16
Figure 2: Access to different means of information 25
Figure 3: Landholding by HHs 26
Figure 4: Food availability as per the landholdings of HHs 28
Figure 5: Green fodder source 31
Figure 6: Green fodder source on the basis of farm size 31
Figure 7: Biogas plant installation as per ethnicity 32
Figure 8: Biogas installation as per the farm size 33
Figure 9: Sources of fuel wood as per ethnicity 34
Figure 10: Sources of fuel wood as per farm size 34
Figure 11: Acquaintance with buffer zone activity 36
Figure 12: Respondents' perception on change in wildlife population 37
Figure 13: Stand size classification of trees 39
Figure 14: Height classification of trees 49

List of Maps
Map Page No.
Map 1: Study area 11
Map 2: Handikhola VDC showing sample households in the study area 12
Map 3: BZCFs with showing vegetation sample plots 16


List of Tables
Table Page No.
Table 4.1: Sample HHs based on the total number of HHs in the BZCFUGs 14
Table 4.2: Household category as per the land holding 15
Table 4.3: Classification of forest strata 17
Table 4.4: Sampling Parameters 17
Table 4.5: Growing stock and Annual Yield (tons/ha) in the natural forest of
Tarai Regions of Western Development Region, Nepal 20
Table 4.6: Fodder Yield from various land categories 21
Table 4.7: Stand Size Classification 21
xi

Table 4.8: Stocking of Tree Stratum 21
Table 5.1: General characteristics of the Respondents 22
Table 5.2: Population structure of the study area as per the Ethnicity 23
Table 5.3: Population structure of the study area as per the Landholding 23
Table 5.4: Educational Status as per Ethnicity 24
Table 5.5: Educational Status as per Landholding 24
Table 5.6: Sources of drinking water and state of sanitation as per ethnicity 25
Table 5.7: Sources of drinking water and state of sanitation as per farm size 25
Table 5.8: Farm category as per Ethnic group 26
Table 5.9: Land Holding on the basis of Ethnicity 27
Table 5.10: Crop Production and Sufficiency as per the Ethnic Group 27
Table 5.11: Food availability period 27
Table 5.12: Food availability as per the ethnicity 28
Table 5.13: Alternative income sources to manage food insufficiency. 29
Table 5.14: Distribution of livestock on the basis of landholding 29
Table 5.15: Distribution of livestock on the basis of ethnicity 29
Table 5.16: Fodder demand as per the land holding 30
Table 5.17: Fodder demand as per ethnicity 30
Table 5.18: Correlation between different parameters of fodder 31
Table 5.19: Sources of energy 32
Table 5.20: Various sources of fuel wood 33
Table 5.21: Fuel wood consumption of households as per farm size 34
Table 5.22: Fuel wood consumption of households as per the ethnicity 35
Table 5.23: Correlation of fuel wood demand with different parameters 35
Table 5.24: Average Buffer zone community forest area (h a) per HH 35
Table 5.25: Acquaintance with the condition of BZCFs 36
Table 5.26: Density, Frequency, Basal area and IVI of plant species at tree
Stratum 38
Table 5.27: Stocking of the forests 40
Table 5.28: Density, Frequency, Dominance and IVI of plant species at
shrub stratum 40
Table 5.29: Density, Frequency, Dominance and IVI of plant species at
herb stratum 42
Table 5.30 Dominance index, Species Richness, Shannon Diversity Index and
xii

Evenness Index of different plant strata 43
Table 5.31: Regeneration of Tree Species in Shrub Plots 44
Table 5.32: Cut stump density 45
Table 5.33: Cut stump density as per the DBH class 45
Table 5.34: Lopping intensity of the tree species 46
Table 5.35: Density of lopped species as per the lopping intensity 46
Table 5.36: Volume and biomass of tree species 47
Table 5.37: Sustainable yield of fuel wood and timber 48
Table 5.38: Annual yield of green fodder in unit III of Handikhola BZ area 49
Table 5.39: Estimated resource demand and supply 49



xiii

ACRONYMS
BA Basal Area
BZ Buffer Zone
BZCF Buffer Zone Community Forest
BZCFUG Buffer Zone Community Forest User Group
BZMR Buffer Zone Management Regulation
BZUG Buffer Zone User Group
CAMR Conservation Area Management Regulation
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CDR Central Development Region
CFUGs Community Forest User Groups
CNP Chitwan National Park
CSD Cut Stump Density
DBH Diameter at Breast Height
DNPWC Department of National parks and Wildlife Conservation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FSSD Forest Survey and Statistical Division
GPS Global Positioning System
Ha Hectare
HHs Households
HMG/N His Majestys Government Nepal
ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Projects
INV Inventory Net Volume
IVI Important Value Index
Kg Kilogram
LU Livestock Unit
LTD Live Tree Density
MAB Man and Biosphere
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MPFSN Master Plan for Forestry Sector of Nepal
PAs Protected Areas
PCP Participatory Conservation Programme
PWR Parsa Wildlife Reserve
xiv

RBA Relative Basal Area
RD Relative Density
RF Relative Frequency
SLC School Leaving Certificate
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
TDN Total Digestible Nutrient
UCs User Committees
UGs User Groups
VDC Village Development Committee
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization
Yr Year

1

CHAPTER: ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Conservation and Buffer Zone Programme
The relationship between local people and Protected Areas is one of the most vexed
issues in conservation and encapsulates the problems inherent in a trade-off between the
common good and the rights and needs of the individual. It is also an area where those
ultimately responsible for protected areas including both governments and others
have all too often got things badly wrong, creating tensions and conflicts through a
failure to address questions of peoples needs early enough in the planning of a
protected area (Carey, et.al, 2000). Protected areas help save biodiversity and wildlife
from being destroyed (Brandon & Wells, 1992; Skonhoft, 1998). However, in the
developing world due to poverty and population growth, protection laws have caused
park-people conflicts (Heinen, 1993). Studies show that a restriction on use or
harvesting of natural resources from the traditionally used lands is the main cause of
park-people conflict (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Heinen, 1996; Sekhar, 1998; Straede &
Helles, 2000). With the exhaustion and restriction of natural resources, people will tend
to extract as much as possible from protected areas in order to satisfy their immediate
needs, without considering the benefits to be gained from long-term environmental
security (Heinen & Meheta, 2000).
The relationships between human communities and protected areas have too often been
ignored and even destroyed by resource conservation and management initiatives.
Moreover, the establishment of protected areas has often displaced rural communities
from their traditional lands and policy of strict protection has also alienated the wildlife
from the local people, and has frequently transformed wildlife from a valuable
commodity into a threat and a nuisance (Johannesen & Skonhoft, 2005).The ill-suited
concepts and approaches to the needs and problems of local, often native people, led
park people conflict and raised many questions on long term biodiversity conservation
and protected areas.
The relationships between protected areas and human needs, and the relevancy of
integrating protected areas with other major development issues were focused firstly in
Third World Congress on National Parks, 1982 (Mishra & Jefferies, 1991; cited in
2

Nepal & Weber, 1993), nourished and reinforced by the Man and Biosphere/United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (MAB/UNESCO) Biosphere
Reserve Action Plan 1984 (Sayer, 1991). Since the 1993 World Park Congress held in
Caracas, the scientific community has known and has recognized that the mostly poor
local populations bear major costs of conservation, while the main benefits occur
globally (Amend & Amend, 1995; Wells, 1992); this truth was again acknowledged,
and more forcefully, by the conservation community during the 2003 World Park
Congress.
Following the failure of top-down exclusionary approaches ('fortress conservation' or
fences and fines or bio-centric approach) to protected areas in reaching conservation
objectives, the 1993 World Park Congress in Caracas recognized and acknowledged the
role of local people in conservation and embraced the concept of ICDPs put forward by
Wells and Brandon (1993). While the core objective of these ICDPs projects is
protected area conservation (Brandon & Wells, 1992), the aim is to achieve this by
promoting economic development and by providing local people with alternative
income sources that do not threaten wildlife.
The buffer zone concept underlies the philosophy of ICDPs by encouraging both
sustainable extractive uses and public participation in management which became the
forefront of conservation (HMG/N, 1993; Heinen and Mehta, 2000). However, the
widespread implementation of ICDPs has disappointing results (Wells and Mc Shane,
2004), as it is primarily unable to address the ecological and social aspects of
biodiversity conservation. But despite the global failure of ICDPs, social capital has
been rapidly gaining its ground in long term conservation, which involves ecology,
economic forecast and social strata (Paudyal, 2007). Yonzon (2006) argues that these
three fundamentals should be synthesized as one for forecasting scenarios and
sustaining development activities to safeguard biodiversity.
The legal definition of buffer zones is "areas set aside around a national park or reserve
for granting opportunities to local people to use forest products on a regular basis"
(HMG/UNDP, 1994). Nepal, having its higher proportion of people depending upon the
forest resources, institutionalized the concept of Buffer Zone (BZ), outside of
protected area, under the framework of ICDPs to ensure solutions for pursuing sound
conservation by ensuring a double sustainability: that is, the sustainability of
3

peoples livelihood and the sustainability of biodiversity (Ebregt & Greve, 2000; Cernea
& Schmidt-Soltau, 2006).
Though, over the last two decades ICDPs have failed to live up to their promises
(Christensen, 2003), integrated conservation and development with participatory
approach, in Nepal, is perceived to have made biodiversity conservation both holistic
and real (Bajimaya, 2005) resulting in the gradual increment of buffer zone area. They
are thought to be doing well, but there has not been concrete research so as to say they
are successful or not. Thus with the changing time and technologies, the core principle
of buffer zone needs the assessment so as to ensure that they are living up to their
promise and dont fail in the midway.
1.2 Rationale of the Study
The buffer zone (BZ) programme is an important intervention in Nepal's journey
towards participatory conservation. The programme has opened up spaces for local
people to participate in conservation activities through a range of institutional
arrangements such as user groups (UGs), user committees (UCs) and Councils (Paudel
et. al 2007). The concept of buffer zone, besides calling for sustainable utilization of
forest resources, also necessitates environmental conservation within the zone (Sharma
1995).
To promote the sustainable use of biological resources, there is no ground-based
knowledge in biological and ecological sciences (Yonzon, 2004). There is no sufficient
study to assess the complete relation between resources access, wildlife damage and
monetary benefits from national parks (Joshi, 1999). In contrast, some contend as
Nepals PAs meet the basic needs of communities who live in the BZ, the focus of BZ
has shifted more towards people (RHF, 2005). Like many developing countries, Nepal
has adopted a Community Based Conservation (CBC) approach in recent years to
manage its PAs mainly in response to poor park-people relations (Heinen & Mehta,
2000). Ecological information on Churiya is almost non-existent. For instance, out of
637 site-specific botanical studies in Nepal since 1922, only 3% have attributed the
Churiya (Rajbhandari, 1994). This figure is the lowest of all physiographic zones.
Similarly less than 4% of all published papers on Nepals biodiversity are attributed to
the Churiya (ICIMOD, 1996). Also there is a lack of sound database at local level on
forest dependency and livelihood options of people.
4

On this ground, this study in unit III of Handikhola BZUC, Parsa Wildlife Reserve, will
provide a set of data on vegetation composition and socio-economic structure of the
VDC in the BZ which can be used to compare with other BZ VDCs of same PAs so as
to figure out fodder and fuel wood needs and draw the line between different zones.
This will definitely help conservation biologists and protected area managers to
implement the effective conservation framework. Moreover, the outcomes of this study
could be helpful for maintaining database at local level which could avail information
for better management practices of BZ.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
Broadly, the study endeavors to ascertain the overall status of unit III of Handikhola
BZUC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve with the special focus on ecological and socio-
economic setting.
Specific Objectives:
1. To study the vegetation ecology of the BZ community forests and the
sustainable supply of forest resources.
2. To assess the total fodder and fuel wood demands of local people, and the share
of conventional and alternative sources of energy being utilized by the people.
3. To be acquainted with the demography and socio-economic condition of
households in the area.
1.4 Limitations of the Study
1. The study of demand and supply of forest resources embraces only fodder and
fuel wood.
2. Since the study was conducted in the dry season, a number of species of herbs
and shrubs have not been reported.
3. The vegetation analysis takes account of only forest measurement but not the
study of any cause and effect relationship.
4. The error value was not incorporated into the forest inventory. Thus, the results
represent actual measurements.
5. To find out the forest crown cover, ocular estimation was made.

5

CHAPTER: TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Buffer Zone Programme
Buffer zone programmes are one of the most widely applied strategies to nature
conservation. As a particular strategy of integrating conservation with development,
buffer zones conceive protected areas as composed of layers of resources subject to
different priorities; the inner zone, also called the core zone, is subjected to strict
protection. The outer layer, usually called the buffer zone (BZ), is targeted for
sustainable use (Paudel, 2006). BZs are therefore defined as peripheral zones of
protected areas subjected to restricted use (Sayer, 1991). BZ programme has two
common objectives. First, by improving the management of the natural resources in the
buffer zone area, they seek to increase the supply of natural resources for local need
thereby reducing the pressure on the protected area. Second, improved ecological
conditions in the buffer zones are expected to provide an extended habitat for the
wildlife (Poudel, 2006). This opportunity to meet the multiple agenda of conservation
and poverty reduction has, according to Sayer (1991), convinced the larger donors to
invest in BZ programmes. The ideas of BZs have been so popular that almost every
protected area now talks of BZ (Wells & Brandon, 1993).
The conservation model based on the foundation of strict protection has been found to
be insufficient as protected areas enjoy no or little public support and therefore some
alternative mechanism for long-term conservation of biological resources are required.
Hence, the introduction of the BZ programme in Nepal is a testimony to increase
realization of the participatory approaches and emerging understanding of landscape
management approaches (Budhathoki, 2003).
2.2 Livelihood and Conservation
Forest resources play an important role in peoples livelihood throughout the globe
(Shackleton, et. al., 2007; Quang & Noriko, 2008). Thoms (2008) also mentioned that
forest products and services are important in that they provide indirect livelihood
benefits for the well-being of people. Sunderlin, et. al., (2005) explained that most of
the rural livelihood is maintained with diversified sources while sufficient income could
not be obtained from any single occupation to survive. The reason is that farmers
6

livelihood systems also could not be entirely reliant on agriculture but rather should
involve the forest. Livelihood opportunities are determined by various socioeconomic
and development factors (Wunder, 2001; Sunderlin, et. al.,2005; Shackleton, et. al.,
2007), therefore, communities living in and adjacent to savannas and forests are
characterized by seemingly high levels of poverty. There is always a strong relationship
among the natural resources, peoples livelihood and socioeconomic consequences in
particular. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and several other international
forums have identified increasing global poverty and loss of biodiversity as the twin
problems of twenty first century. These problems are perceived to be mutually
reinforcing where poverty is usually seen as both cause and consequence of biodiversity
loss. However, in many cases conservation initiatives themselves have induced poverty.
Conservation efforts such as creation and management of protected areas exacerbate
poverty by eviction, denying access to traditional resources use and loss of life,
livestock and crop due to increased wildlife (Panta, 2009). Brown (2003) argues that
wide range of different strategies and approaches will be necessary in the future to
reconcile and trade-off the needs and demands of global to local societies in a real
people centered conservation; and as per Hutton and Williams (2003) sustainable use
and incentive-driven conservation should both be at the centre of the conservation
agenda this century. Berkes (2004) argues that rethinking community based
conservation require an explicit understanding of the nature of people, communities,
institutions, and their interrelations at various levels.
2.3 Buffer Zone in Context of Nepal
Nepal embarked on formal conservation of species and habitats with the 'fortress-and-
fines' model in the 1970s; an approach that was easy to conceptualize, and discouraged
most forms of resource use from protected areas (PAs) (Heinen and Mehta, 2000), but
the alienation of local people who lost extraction rights culminated in negative attitudes
towards conservation and PA-people relationships became poor (Nepal and Weber,
1995; Studsord and Wegge, 1995). Although the approach was successful in conserving
endangered species of wildlife (Heinen and Yonzon, 1994), it was severely criticized for
imposing restrictions on local-level usage rights and debarring local people from
participation (Heinen, 1996; Heinen and Shrestha, 2006). As a result of broader levels
of decentralization and democratization, the government gradually changed its policy to
inclusion of local people in PA management. However, there have been significant
7

dissenting voices that suggest strict protection remains the highest priority for
conservation interests (Brandon, et al., 1998; Terborgh et al., 2002).
Nepal entered into the next generation of participatory conservation after the
Conservation Area Management Regulation (CAMR) 1995 and Buffer Zone
Management Regulation (BZMR) were passed. These regulations enjoined participation
and empowerment of local people for the conservation, management and utilization of
natural resources (HMG/N, 1996). The ratification of BZMR vested the government
with the legal power to declare and delineate BZs in the periphery of national parks and
wildlife reserves and to earmark 30-50% of revenue generated by them to local
communities residing in the buffer zones for various activities prioritized by local
people. BZs have been developed with the aim to meet the natural resource needs of
local communities as well as minimizing human impact on protected areas so as to
avoid contentious situation between the park management and people. Various
integrated conservation and development activities have been carried out in BZs to meet
the dual goals of environmental protection and economic development.
2.3.1 Development, Conservation Issues and Park-people Conflict
Yonzon (1999) argues that vitality of Protected Areas, is guaranteed through people's
participation but the nuts and bolts of ecology are wanting. Minimizing external
assistance for the biodiversity conservation, in the form of jump start and quick fix, will
be mutually beneficial for Nepal (Yonzon, 2004). Though Nepal has achieved much in
biodiversity conservation, given the scarcity of resources, economic imbalance and
growing human population, the vulnerability of protected areas will further increase
(Poudel ,2005).
The BZ policy is mostly coercive from the stand point of local people (Heinen and
Mehta, 2000). The spatial complexities involved in correctly identifying the
beneficiaries in a community and the short-term focus of incentive based programmes
are two major challenges for sustaining conservation efforts (Spiteri and Nepal, 2005).
The BZ and conservation area policies have over time become weighted more heavily
towards development and less towards conservation (Heinen and Shrestha, 2006).
Damage of agricultural crop, human harassment, injuries and death, and livestock
depredation are the common causes of the imbalanced park-people relationship
(Studsord and Wegge, 1995). Nepal and Weber (1995) identified five major causes of
8

park-people conflicts prevailing in the park including, illegal transactions of forest
products, livestock grazing, illegal hunting and fishing, crop damage, and threats to
human from wild animals. Joshi (1999) studied the socio economic analysis of BZ of
Chitwan National Park and found that the households having positive attitudes towards
national park are usually the one who consume higher quantity of natural resources,
have lower damage from wildlife, benefit from tourism and are educated.
2.3.2 Buffer Zone Community Forestry
According to DFRS/HMGN (1999a & b), forest area has decreased at an annual rate of -
1.7% from 1978/79 to 1994, whereas forest and shrub land together have decreased at
an annual rate of -0.51% in the entire country. The forest cover in the Tarai has
decreased at an annual rate of -1.3% from 1978/79 to 1990/91. In the hills, the forest
area has decreased at an annual rate of -2.3% from 1978/79 to 1994, whereas forest and
shrub altogether have decreased at an annual rate of 0.2%. Chaudhary (2000) points out
that the decline in forest resources in Nepal took place in the past due to lack of
appropriate policy to guide the legal, institutional and operational development for the
forestry sector. As a result, the evolution of community forestry has gained a new
impetus in recent years (Chakraborty, 2001).
Community forests provide Nepali villagers with a variety of timber products and many
other marketable resources. But, Adhikari et. al. (2004) found that poorer households
are currently facing more restricted access to community forests than "less poor" or
relatively better off households. In this regard, Maskey et. al. (2006) found that the
disadvantaged groups are excluded from decision making in product distribution due to
their insignificant involvement in community forest management. As per Devkota
(2005), Nepal is pioneer to establish sustainable forest management by forming forest
user's groups. But Straede and Treue (2006) argue that irrespective of BZ community
forestry, there is still a gap between local people's need for supplementing natural
resources and their rights to satisfy them on a legal basis, which is likely to be
unsustainable.
9

2.4 Other Pertinent Researches
Bhatta (1994) studied the buffer zone aspects and the local participation in the
conservation of biodiversity and found that the problems of the locals are yet to be
addressed.
Bhuju (1984) studied the conservation strategy of Nepal and found that the legal
provision had clearly demarcated the protected areas for conservation but the co-
operation with the locals is still lacking.
Joshi (1999) studied the socio economic status of BZ of Chitwan National Park and
found that the HHs having positive attitudes towards national park are usually the one
which consume higher quantity of Natural Resources, have lower damage from wildlife,
benefit from tourism and are educated.
FAO (2001) stated that forest resources contributed directly to livelihoods and combine
with other key components of poverty reduction through food production, food security,
provide commercial opportunities and employment for the poor.
K.C. (2007) had investigated the BZ vegetation status and socio economic perspective
of biodiversity conservation in two wards of Manahari VDC of CNP and the study
demonstrated that the fuel wood and fodder resources of the buffer zone were not
sufficient and the harvesting practice was not sustainable.
Dhakal (2007) carried out the research in Kolhuwa Buffer Zone VDC of Chitwan
National Park assessing resource demand and supply scenario of local users of BZ, and
his conclusion was that BZ programmes had several shortcomings mainly because of
high population relying on fewer amounts of resources driving them towards abject
poverty.
Nagendra et. al. (2005) found the regeneration of several patches of BZCF as a good
sign of forest management in Chitwan, but due to the lack of effective control over
forest managements policies, local communities were functioning under a situation of
constraint and hence the lack of development of property rights and decision making
power imposed negative implication for the future of the programme.
Rijal and Meilby (2006) suggested that lack of knowledge of forest structure;
composition and magnitude of human impacts on various components of the ecosystem
remain a major limitation for the development of the appropriate participatory
10

management programmes for conservation and sustainable utilization of the forests in
Nepal.
Shrestha et. al. (2000) compared the status of regenerating, natural and degraded forest
of chitre pani, Makwanpur district, and found highest tree biomass and volume in
natural forest; while tree and sapling density were highest in regenerating forest.
Straede and Treue (2006) argued that irrespective of buffer zone community forestry,
there is still a gap between local people's need for supplementing natural resources and
their rights to satisfy them on a legal basis, which is likely to be unsustainable.
Subedi (2010) studied BZ resources, livelihood and community level conservation of
Manahari VDC and noted that annual demand of fuel wood and fodder outstrip the
annual sustainable supply and suggested participation of locals through the evaluation
of current BZ policy for sustaining BZ.
Sunderlin et. al. (2005) mentioned that HH surveys and case study research
demonstrated the tendency of rural poor being disproportionately dependent upon forest
resources in the sense that a higher proportion of their total income comes from forest
resources.
Jnawali (1989) assessed the crop damage and human harassment by rhino in Sahaura
area and suggested that the northern fringe of the park is degraded due to the livestock
grazing and other human activities. He also emphasized on the people oriented
programme and compensation to reduce the growing negative attitude towards park
management.

11

CHAPTER: THREE
STUDY AREA
3.1 Parsa Wildlife Reserve
Parsa Wildlife Reserve (PWR) was gazetted in 1984 A.D (B.S. 2041) with an aim of
preserving the population of wild Asian elephant and a variety of associated flora and
fauna. The reserve covers an area of 558.1 km
2
of tropical and sub-tropical forest. The
Reserve also provides an extended habitat to the wildlife of the Chitwan National Park
(CNP). The Reserve includes tropical and sub-tropical forests of Churia (Siwalik) and
Bhabar physiographic regions from Parsa, Makwanpur and Bara districts. The Reserve
headquarters is located at Adhabhar on the East-West highway.
The soil is primarily composed of gravel and conglomerates, making it very susceptible
to erosion. The hills present a rugged face with numerous gullies and dry stream beds.
As the foothills are very porous, water flows underground from surfaces at the distance
of about 15 km from hill base (DNPWC/PCP, 2006).
BZ of PWR was declared in 2005 covering an area of 298.17 km
2
.

Map 1: A: Nepal and PWR; B: PWR and BZ; C: Handikhola VDC and Study Area
(Source: FINNIDA, 1992)
A
C
B
12

3.2 Handikhola Buffer Zone User Committee
Handikhola BZUC lies in Makwanpur district in the Narayani Zone of Southern Nepal.
Handikhola VDC lies to the southwest corner of Makwanpur district and is bordered by
Manahari VDC to the west, Padampokhari VDC to the east, Basamadi VDC to the north
and dense forest of Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Parsa to the south. The VDC is touched by
the East-West Highway (the Mahendra Highway) and is drained by the Rapti River
through the rivulets like Twangra khola, Masine khola, Handi khola, Thado khola,
Makari khola and Chakari khola. The climate is sub tropical monsoon.
Handikhola BZ area includes all 9 wards in the BZ programme and is classified into
three divisions: Unit I (ward number 8 and 9), Unit II (ward number 5, 6 and 7) and
Unit III (ward number 1, 2, 3 and 4). The present study encompasses only three wards
(ward number 1, 2 and 4) of Unit III. Ward number 3 was not studied as it had no any
CF registered till then. Further, the study covers 7 CFs viz. Chetana BZCF (164.60 ha)
(Operational plan, 2009/10 to 2013/14), Jankalyan Kalika BZCF (293.89 ha)
(Operational plan, 2008-2013), Janahit BZCF (434.63 ha) (Operational plan, 2008-
2013), Janajagriti BZCF (141.00 ha) (Operational plan, 2007-2012), Gaurishanker
BZCF (300.00 ha) (Operational plan, 2008-2013), Lokhit BZCF (284.00 ha)
(Operational plan, 2007-2012) and Manakamana BZCF (422.00 ha) (Operational plan,
2007-2012).

Map 2: Handikhola VDC showing sample HHs in the study area
(Source: FINNIDA, 1992)
13

CHAPTER: FOUR
MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.1 Research Design
The research study was carried out based on the following framework.











4.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey
In order to collect informations pertinent to the study, reconnaissance survey was
carried out. On the basis of it, questionnaire was formed and pretested. The total number
of HHs in the study area and the total area of the forests were found out from the
operational plans of respective BZCFs so as to determine the HH sample size and the
intensity of vegetation sampling. Also, the GPS points of forest boundaries were taken
to prepare maps.

Map Preparation
Draft Report Preparation
Data Analysis
Final Report Preparation
Field Study
A. Vegetation Analysis
B. Questionnaire Survey
a) Household well being
b) Forest Issues
c) BZ Management Issues
d) Wildlife Issues

Literature Review Reconnaissance Survey
a) Preliminary Study
b) Formation of sample questionnaire
c) Pretesting of Sample questionnaire
d) Finalization of sample questionnaire
e) GPS points of forest boundary

14

4.1.2 Household Sampling Design and Sample Size
The sample size (n) of the household, to represent the study area, was determined by
using following formula adopted by (Arkins and Colton, 1963) as cited by Poudyal
(2000).
P) P(1 Z Nd
P) P(1 NZ
(n) size Sample
2 2
2
+

=

Where n = sample size (number of sample HHs)
N= Total number of HHs
Z= Confidence level (at 95% level, Z=1.96)
P= estimated population proportion (0.05, this maximizes the sample size)
d= error limit of 5 % (0.05)
Thus, sample size was found out to be of 70 HHs. The sample selection was made after
thorough review of available population and HH statistics of unit III of BZUC. The
required information about the number of HHs in the BZUGs and ward wise
differentiation was obtained from the operational plans of the respective BZCFs. These
HHs were selected by applying stratified random sampling by lottery box method
(without replacement), for which total number of HHs in each Community Forest User
Group (CFUG) was considered. Same formula as above was applied on CFUG
population to extract appropriate number from each CFUG (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Sample HHs based on the total number of HHs in the BZCFUGs
Ward No. Buffer zone community forest
user group
Total No. of HHs in the
user group
No. of Sample
HHs
1 Chetana BZCFUG 153 7
1 Jankalyan Kalika BZCFUG 135 7
1 & 2 Janahit BZCFUG 184 10
2 Jana Jagriti BZCFUG 363 18
4 Garuishanker BZCFUG 234 11
4 Manakamana BZCFUG 211 11
4 Lokhit BZCFUG 120 6
Total 1400
70


15

4.1.3 Questionnaire Survey, Data Calculation and Analysis
Structured and semi-structured questionnaires were prepared for HH survey having
basic focus on the HH information, fodder and fuel wood demand, BZ issues and
wildlife related issues. The collected data from the field were sorted as per the different
categories. The local units were converted into standard units as given by Nepal &
Weber 1993 (Annex I). The data brought from the field were coded and fed into
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS: version-16) a computer software. The
output tables and charts obtained from the analysis were transferred to Microsoft Excel
2007 to change in simple and interpretable forms, which were then presented in
different charts, tables and diagrams. The analyses were primarily based on frequency,
mean, percentage, correlation etc to obtain characteristics of households according to
ethnicity and land holding category. The land holding category was made as shown in
the Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Household category as per the land holding
Land Category Land Holding (Kattha) Land Holding (Ha)
Landless 0 0
Small Farm 10 0.34
Medium Farm 10-20 0.34-0.68
Big Farm 20-80 0.68-2.72
Large Farm > 80 >2.72
Source: DNPWC/PPP, 2000

4.2 Vegetation Survey
4.2.1 Sampling
In the reconnaissance study, forest boundaries were determined by GPS (GPS model: e-
trex, Garmin USA) tracking. The boundary map of the forest was prepared by using
Arc-GIS and random sampling plots were generated out of which 41 plots were studied
(Random Sampling Method) (Map 3). Pre-registered sampling plots in the forest, were
determined by tracking with GPS.


16


Map 3: BZCFs showing vegetation sample plots
(Source: FINNIDA, 1992)
4.2.2 Plot Design
Two hundred and five plots were laid for the vegetation survey. These included 41 plots
for tree stratum, 82 each for species at shrub stratum and herb stratum. Quadrate of size
20m20m were laid for analysis of tree stratum (DBH>10 cm). Each quadrate
comprised of two small sub quadrate of 5m5m in diagonally opposite corner (NW and
SE direction) for the analysis of shrub stratum (DBH<10 cm). Within 5m5m, a
quadrate of 1m1m was laid for the study of herb stratum (height<10cm) (Figure 1).
Seedling (height<10cm) and Sapling (DBH<10 cm and height >10cm) of all the
obtained species were enumerated within Shrub plots. Similarly within the herb plots,
all herbs, shrubs and tree species with height below 10cm were counted.





Figure 1: Nested Quadrate plot

5m
5m
5m
1m
1m
20 m
20 m
1m
1m
5m
17

Classification of forest strata was done as given in the table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Classification of forest strata
Category Height DBH
Tree Not stated > 10 cm
Shrub > 10 cm < 10 cm
Herb < 10 cm Not stated
(Source: Rijal, 1994)
4.3 Sampling Parameters and Methodology
The sampling parameters, with their measurement approach, for the study were as given
in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Sampling Parameters
Sampling Parameters Measurement approach
No. of individual tree species Count
Height of each individual tree Brunton Compass
DBH of each individual tree Using Diameter tape
Stocking of trees Ocular estimation
Lopping of each individual trees Count
Cut sump (DBH) DBH tape
Cut stump (height) Measuring tape
No. of shrub species and individual no. of each species Count
Shrub height (each individual) Calibrated stick
Shrub coverage in the plot Ocular estimation
No. of herb species and individual no. of each species Count
Herb coverage in the plot Ocular estimation

Most of the plant species were identified in the field with their local names. The
unidentified were tagged and preserved as herbarium and were identified in Central
Department of Botany and Central Department of Environmental Science, Kirtipur, and
Botanical Garden, Godavari.
4.4 Quantitative Analysis of Vegetation
4.4.1 General Parameters
The data collected in the field were calculated separately for tree, shrubs, and herbs.
Different structural parameters namely: Density, Frequency, Basal area, IVI,
Dominance Index, Species Richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity Index, Evenness Index,
were determined using formulae given by Kent and Coker (1998) and Odum (1996).
18

The formulae used are as follows:
10000
sampled plots of no. Total plot the of Size
species of individual of . No
Density/ha =

100
species all of Density Total
species individual of Density
(%) Density Relative =

100
sampled plots no. Total
occurred species in which plots of no. Total
(%) Frequency =

00 1
species the all of s frequencie of Sum
species a of Frequency
(%) Frequency Relative =

2
N
ni
Dominance
(

=

00 1
species the all of dominance of Sum
species of Dominance
(%) (RDo) Dominance Relative =

Importance Value Index (IVI) = (RD + RF + RBA) for tree stratum
Importance Value Index (IVI) = (RD + RF + RDo) for Shrub and herb stratum
Where, RD = Relative density, RF = Relative Frequency,
RBA = Relative Basal Area and RDo =Relative Dominance
00 1
4
(DBH)
) / (m (BA) Area Basal
2
2
= ha

Where, DBH =Diameter of a tree at breast height

( ) 00 1
species all of area basal Total
species of Area Basal
(%) RBA Area Basal Relative =

100
species a of RBA TBA
species) a (of Area/ha Basal

=

2
i
N
n
(c) Dominance Of Index

\
|
=

Where, n
i
= importance value for each species; N = total of importance values
|

\
|
|

\
|
=

N
n
log
N
n
- (H) Diversity Of Index Wiener - Shanon
i i

Where, n
i
= No. of individual species; N = Total no. of individual species
19

100
logN
1 - S
(R) richness Species =

Where, S = no. of species; N = Total no. of individual species


Evenness index (E) = H/logS
Where, H = Shannon-Wiener index of diversity and S = no. of species

4.4.2 Volume and Biomass
The calculation system called Inventory Net Volume (INV) developed by the Forest
Inventory Section, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Nepal (HMG 1988a and
HMG 1988b) was used for the calculation of volume and biomass of each individual
tree.
The formula given below was used to calculate volume and biomass.
In (V) = a + bln(d) + cln(h) V =
ln(h) c + ln(d) b + a
e

Where,
) log ln(
e
= = Natural logarithm value
V= Total stem volume with bark (m
3
/ha)
d = Diameter of tree at breast height (meter)
h = Tree height in meter
a, b, and c are volume parameters, which are constant for each species but different
between species. The volume parameters were obtained from the study carried out by
Forest Survey and Statistical Division, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
(FSSD, 1991).
Biomass Calculation Procedures
Stem Biomass = Stem Volume Wood Density
Branch Biomass = Stem Biomass Ratio of Branch to Stem Biomass]
Where, the Wood density, Ratio of branch to stem biomass and Ratio of leaf to stem
biomass were obtained from Forestry sector master Plan, 1988 (HMG 1988a).
4.4.3 Estimates of Annual and Sustainable Yield
The Master Plan for the forestry sector of Nepal (MPFSN) has estimated the annual
yield of different forest types of Tarai for the Central Development Region (Table 4.5).
The percent annual yield estimated by Master Plan in similar forest types of Central
20

Development Region were used to estimate the annual yields of Buffer zone forest in
the study area.
Defining sustainable wood harvest as the sum of stem and branch growth, and stem and
branch mortality with only 15% of stem growth allocated for timber and rest (85%) for
fuel wood assuming recovery factor for Tarai as 90% (HMG 1988a). The annual
accumulation of dead wood is 4.9 % of the annual yield (HMG 1988a). Hence, for the
calculation of fuel wood from dead wood, 4.9% of total wood was considered as fuel
wood.
Stem Annual Yield = Stem Biomass Percent Yield
Branch Annual Yield = Branch Biomass Percent Yield
Where, Percent Yield is obtained as per the Forestry sector Master Plan, 1988 (HMG,
1988 a), as shown in the Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Growing Stock and Annual Yield (tons/ha) in the natural forest of Tarai
Regions of Western Development Region, Nepal
Forest type
Forest Biomass Annual Yield Percent yield
Stem Branch Foliage Stem Branch Foliage Stem Branch Foliage
Sal 107.7 42.2 7.24 5.41 2.12 0.360 5.03 5.02 4.97
Tarai mixed 86.1 59 3.7 4.20 2.90 0.200 4.88 4.92 5.41
(Source: HMG 1988a)
Sustainable Fuel wood Yield = 85% of Sustainable Stem Supply + 100% of Sustainable
Branch Supply where, Sustainable Stem Supply = 90% of Stem Annual Yield
Sustainable Branch Supply = 90% of Branch Annual Yield
Sustainable Foliage Supply = 90% of Foliage Annual Yield

21

Fodder yield from Buffer zone community forests was calculated on the basis of Total
Digestible Nutrient (TDN) yields for various categories of land as shown in the table 4.6
(HMG, 1988b).
Table4.6 Fodder Yield from various land categories
Land category TDN Yield (t/ha/yr)
Hardwood Forest, grazing 0.34
Conifer Forest, grazing 0.1
Mixed Forest, grazing 0.15-0.2
Forest, Plantation/Hand cutting 1.44
Shrub/Burnt forest, grazing 0.77
Waste Land/Over Grazed land, grazing 0.24
Flat Land, grazing 0.58
(Source: HMG, 1988b)
4.4.4 Stand Size
The stand size presented below in table 4.7 is solely based on classification of Forest
Inventory Division (1995).
Table 4.7 Stand size classification
SN Stand Size DBH (cm)
1 Sapling <12.5
2 Poles 12.5-25
3 Small timber 25-50
4 Large timber >50

4.4.5 Stocking
The classification of stocking of trees are presented in table 4.8 based on forest density i.e.
Crown Cover Percentage (CCP).
Table 4.8 Stocking of Tree Stratum
SN Description % Crown Cover
1 Poorly stocked 10-39
2 Medium Stocked 40-69
3 Well Stocked 70
(Source: FRSC, 1995)
22

CHAPTER: FIVE
RESULT
5.1 Socio-economic Survey and Household Wellbeing
5.1.1 Respondents
The general characteristics of the respondents were summarized in the following table
5.1. The age of the respondents varied between 17 to 70 years. Majority of the
respondents (91.43%) were adult and only 8.57% were the late settlers; therefore the
data is assumed to possess good reliability.
Table 5.1 General Characteristics of the Respondents
Category Characters No. of respondents Total %
Sex Male
19 27.14
Female 51 72.86
<15 years 0
0.00
Age group 15-59 years 64 91.43
60+ years
6 8.57
Late Settlers (<10 years)
6 8.57
Residence Period Mid Settlers (10-20 years) 11 15.71
Early Settlers (>20 years) 53 75.71
Tamang 43 61.43
Brahmin 16 22.86
Caste Chhetri 5 7.14
Dalit 3 4.29
Chepang
1 1.43
Magar
2 2.86
Agriculture
40 57.14
Business 2 2.86
Service 2 2.86
Current profession Skilled labour 2 2.86
Student
1 1.43
Agriculture+Business
5 7.14
Agriculture+Skilled labour
5 7.14
Agriculture+Wage labour
13 18.57
Illiterate
18 25.71
Primary 34 48.57
Education Under SLC 15 21.43
SLC 2 2.86
Higher Secondary Education
1 1.43
Graduate or above 0 0.00


23

5.2 Socio-economic Status
5.2.1 Population Structure
The population size of the 70 sample households (HHs) was found to be 484, with an
average family size of 6.91 per HH. The samples HHs were represented by 254
(52.48%) males and 230 (47.52%) females. Tamang family (43 HHs) had population
size of 281 (58.06%), while that of Brahmin/Chettri (21 HHs), Dalits (3 HH), Chepang
(1 HH) and Magar (2 HHs) were 151 (31.20%), 25 (5.17%), 16 (3.31%) and 11 (2.27%)
respectively. The study area accounted for 275 (56.81%) working age population (15-59
years), 177 (36.57%) young age dependent population (<15 years) and 32 (6.61%) old
age dependent population (60+ years). Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 represent the average
characteristics of sampled households as per ethnicity and landholding respectively.
Table 5.2 Population Structure of the Study Area as per the Ethnicity
Ethnic Group Mean
Family
Size
Mean
Sex
Ratio
Mean
Dependency
Ratio
Nuclear : Joint
HHs Ratio
Married to
Unmarried
Ratio
Tamang 6.53 1.26 0.99 1.26 0.61
Brahmin/Chhetri 7.33 0.89 0.72 0.54 0.59
Dalit 8.33 0.92 0.47 0.5 0.92
Chepang/Magar 9 1.08 0.4 2 0.8
Total 6.91 1.1 0.76 1 0.62

Table 5.3 Population Structure of the Study Area as per the Landholding
Land Holdings Mean
Family
Size
Mean
Sex
Ratio
Mean
Dependency
Ratio
Nuclear : Joint
HHs Ratio
Married to
Unmarried
Ratio
Landless 5 1.5 0.43 2:00 0.67
Small farm 6.9 1.14 0.81 1.38 0.73
Medium farm 6.52 1.11 1 0.77 0.69
Large farm 7.86 0.96 1 0.56 0.5
Total 6.91 1.1 0.76 1 0.62

5.2.2 Education
Literacy rate was studied only for population above five years of age. In the total sample
HHs, 80.37% of above 5 years of age population was literate. Of the total literate,
49.09% had primary education, and only 0.46% were graduate or above. Tamang group
had highest illiteracy rate. In aggregate, Brahmin/Chhetri were better than other ethnic
groups and none of other ethnic groups attended graduate level except Brahmin/Chhetri
24

and Tamang (Table 5.4). Illiteracy was most prominent among small farm holders
(22.16%) and large farm holders had better access to higher education (Table 5.5).
Table 5.4 Educational Status as per Ethnicity
Ethnic group Illiterate Primary
education
Under
SLC
SLC Intermediate Graduate
or above
Tamang 58 (22.83) 141 (55.51) 40 (15.75) 13 (5.12) 1 (0.39) 1 (0.39)
Brahmin/Chhetri 20 (14.49) 49 (35.51) 44 (31.88) 14 (10.14) 10 (7.25) 1 (0.72)
Dalit 5 (21.74) 9 (39.13) 9 (39.13) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)
Chepang/Magar 3 (13.04) 16 (69.57) 3 (13.04) 1 (4.35) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)
Total 86 (19.63) 215 (49.09) 96 (21.92) 28 (6.39) 11 (2.51) 2 (0.46)
The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage
Table 5.5 Educational Status as per Landholding
Land holding
category
Illiterate Primary
education
Under
SLC
SLC Intermediate Graduate
or above
Landless 1 (11.11) 7 (77.88) 1 (11.11) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)
Small farm 43 (22.16) 104 (53.61) 33 (17.01) 11 (5.67) 2 (1.03) 1 (0.52)
Medium farm 28 (21.37) 63 (48.09) 32 (24.43) 7 (5.34) 1 (0.76) 0 (0.00)
Large farm 14 (13.46) 41 (39.42) 30 (28.85) 10 (9.62) 8 (7.69) 1 (0.96)
Total 86 (19.63) 215 (49.09) 96 (21.92) 28 (6.39) 11 (2.51) 2 (0.46)
The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage
5.2.3 Access to Drinking Water and State of Sanitation
Only 54 HHs (77.14%) among the total sample HHs had access to tapped source of
drinking water while rests of the HHs were depending on spring water. The state of
sanitation was quite poor as 42 HHs (60.00%) had no lavatory facilities.
Brahmin/Chhetris were unsurpassed concerning both sanitation and access to tapped
drinking water. HHs with medium farms had the best access to tapped drinking water.
Table 5.6 and Table 5.7 elucidate the sources of drinking water and condition of
sanitation as per ethnic groups and farm sizes.

25

Table 5.6 Sources of Drinking Water and State of Sanitation as per Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Drinking water source Sanitation
Tapped
water
Spring water No toilet Ordinary (without
septic tank)
Modern (with
septic tank)
Tamang
30 (69.77) 13 (30.23) 34 (79.07) 5 (11.63) 4 (9.30)
Brahmin/Chhetri
20 (95.24) 1 (4.76) 6 (28.57) 8 (38.10) 7 (33.33)
Dalit
2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 2 (66.67) 0 (0.00)
Chepang/Magar
2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33)
Total 54 (77.14) 16 (22.86) 42 (60.00) 16 (22.86) 12 (17.14)
The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage
Table 5.7 Sources of Drinking Water and State of Sanitation as per Farm Size
Farm size
Drinking water source Sanitation
Tapped
water
Spring
water
No toilet Ordinary (without
septic tank)
Modern (with
septic tank)
Landless
1 (50.00) 1 (50.00) 1 (50.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (50.00)
Small farm
23 (74.19) 8 (25.81) 23 (74.19) 6 (19.35) 2 (6.45)
Medium farm
20 (86.96) 3 (13.04) 15 (65.22) 4 (17.39) 4 (17.39)
Large farm
10 (71.43) 4 (28.57) 3 (21.43) 6 (42.86) 5 (35.71)
Total 54 (77.14) 16 (22.86) 42 (60.00) 16 (22.86) 12 (17.14)
The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage
5.2.4 Access to Means of Information
A notable proportion of HHs in the study area had radio (49 HHs; 70.00%), television
(21 HHs; 30.00%) and mobile phones (35 HHs; 50.00%). Only 3 (4.29%) HHs had
CDMA phone and only 1 HH (1.43%) had computer. 14 HHs (20.00%) had no access to
any means of information (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Access to different means of information
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Access to means of information
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

H
H
s
None
Radio
Mobile phone
Radio and TV
Radio and Mobile phone
TV and Mobile phone
Radio and CDMA phone
Mobile and CDMA phone
Radio, TV and Mobile phone
Radio, TV, Mobile, CDMA
Phone and Computer
26

5.2.5 Farm Size
Of the total study HHs, 2 HHs (2.86%) were landless, 31 HHs (44.29%) had small farm
(0- 0.34 ha); 23 HHs (32.86%) had medium farm (0.34-0.68 ha) and 14 HHs (20.00%)
had big farm (0.68-2.72 ha). No HH had farm larger than 2.72 ha (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Landholding by HHs

Most of the Tamang family had small farm and medium farm. Dalit and
Chepang/Magar family were either landless or had only a small farm while no other
ethnic group except Tamang and Brahmin/Chhetri had big farm (Table 5.8). The
average per capita land distribution was found to be 0.08 ha while the mean farm size
averaged to 0.53ha/HH. Brahmin/Chhetri HHs had highest per capita land holding
followed by Tamang HHs (Table 5.9).

Table 5.8 Farm Category as per Ethnic group
Ethnic group Landless Small farm Medium farm Big farm
Tamang 1 20 18 4
Brahmin/Chhetri 0 6 5 10
Dalits 0 3 0 0
Chepang/Magar 1 2 0 0
Total 2 31 23 14


0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Landless Small farm Medium farm Big farm
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

H
H
s
Farm size
27

Table 5.9 Land Holding on the Basis of Ethnicity
Ethnic Group Total farm
size (Ha)
Mean farm
size (Ha)
Per capita land
distribution (Ha)
Standard
Deviation
Std.Error
of Mean
Tamang 18.98 0.44 0.07 0.28 0.04
Brahmin/Chhetri 16.22 0.77 0.11 0.60 0.13
Dalit 0.77 0.26 0.03 0.05 0.03
Chepang/Magar 1.19 0.40 0.04 0.57 0.33
Total 37.16 0.53 0.08 0.43 0.05

5.2.6 Crop Production and Sufficiency
Maize was the main food crop being produced by 67 HHs (95.71%), while ginger and
pulses were main cash crops. Out of 70 sample HHs, 45 were food deficit, 11 were food
surplus, 12 HHs had production just enough to balance their subsistence needs, while 2
HHs were not involved in agriculture at all; they owned retail shops. Table 5.10 shows
the production of food crops and cash crops as per ethnic group.
Table 5.10 Crop Production and Sufficiency as per the Ethnic Group


Ethnic group
Food crop
production
(Kg/yr)
Cash crop
production
(Kg/yr)
Surplus
HHs*
Deficit
HHs*
Balance
HHs*
Mean
Per
capita
Mean
Per
capita
Total
%
Total
%
Total
%
Tamang 1009.80 154.52 621.35 95.08 6.98 74.42 18.60
Brahmin/Chhetri 2170.05 301.79 952.24 132.43 38.10 38.10 19.05
Dalit 546.67 65.60 363.33 43.60 0.00 100.00 0.00
Chepang/Magar 1458.67 162.07 483.33 53.70 0.00 66.67 0.00
* Only food crops have been considered
Majority of the sampled HHs (38.57%) had food availability for 6 to 9 months. Only
(34.29%) of the sampled HHs had food enough for more than 9 months, while (4.29%)
had food sufficiency for less than 3 months (Table 5.11).
Table 5.11 Food Availability Period
Food Security Period No. of HHs %
<3 months
3 4.29
3-5 months
14 20.00
6-9 months
27 38.57
> 9 months
24 34.29
Not involved in agriculture
2 2.86
Total
70 100.00

Among the different ethnic groups Brahmin/Chhetri had the highest food availability
while food insecurity was most marked among Dalit group (Table 5.11). No Dalit
28

family had food availability for more than 9 months. Two HHs did not rely on
agriculture as they owned groceries. Food availability was further analysed as per the
land holdings of HHs (Figure 4). The correlation of food availability with landholdings
was positive [r=0.492; correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)].
Table 5.12 Food Availability as per the ethnicity
Ethnic Group
Food Availability
<3 months
3-5
months
6-9
months
> 9
months
Not involved in
agriculture
Tamang 2 (4.65) 11 (25.58) 18 (41.86) 12 (27.91) 0 (0.00)
Brahmin/Chhetri 0 (0.00) 2 (9.52) 6 (28.57) 12 (57.14) 1 (4.76)
Dalit 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)
Chepang/Magar 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (66.67) 0 (0.00) 1 (33.33)
The numbers in the parenthesis indicate percentage.

Figure 4: Food availability as per the landholdings of HHs
Though agriculture was found to be the major livelihood option for most of the HHs, 46
HHs (65.71%) had to rely on other income sources to fulfill their food insufficiency as
only 22 HHs (31.43%) had enough food crop production to support their family, while
for 2 HHs (2.86%) agriculture was not the livelihood option (Table 5.13).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Landless
Small farm
Medium farm
Large farm
F
a
r
m

s
i
z
e
Number of Households
<3 months
3-5 months
6-9 months
> 9 months
Not in agriculture
29

Table 5.13 Alternative Income Sources to Manage Food insufficiency.
Alternative Income Source Number of HHs Percent
No deficit
22 31.43
Wage labour
14 20.00
Loan
4 5.71
Wage labour +Loan
12 17.14
Rearing livestock
2 2.86
Skilled labour
3 4.29
Business
2 2.86
Wage labour+Rearing livestock
3 4.29
Loan+Rearing livestock
3 4.29
Skilled labour +Loan
3 4.29
Not involved in agriculture
2 2.86
Total
70 100.00

5.2.7 Livestock Holding and Fodder Consumption
Livestock rearing was common off-farm income generating activity of the locals. 67
HHs (95.71%) were found to be rearing livestock; cattle, buffalos and goats being the
major livestock reared. The different livestock types were synthesized into single unit
called Livestock Unit (LU) (Annex II) as per Nepal and Weber (2003) for further
analysis. Total and mean LU of studied area was found to be 164.14/HH and 2.45/HH,
respectively. As per the landholding size, HHs with small farm held highest portion of
total LU (61.84) with mean LU 2.13/HH (Table 5.14); and as per the ethnicity, Tamang
HHs held highest portion of total LU (93.09) with mean LU 2.22/HH (Table 5.15).
Table 5.14 Distribution of Livestock on the Basis of Landholding
Land Holding Cow/Ox Buffalo Goat Total
Livestock Unit
Livestock
Unit/HH
Landless 1 0 7 1.91 1.91
Small farm 59 15 63 61.84 2.13
Medium farm 48 12 81 55.50 2.41
Big farm 35 12 69 44.89 3.21
Total 143 39 220 164.14 2.45

Table 5.15 Distribution of Livestock on the Basis of Ethnicity
Ethnic Group Cow/Ox Buffalo Goat Total Livestock
Unit
Livestock
Unit/HH
Tamang 87 12 149 93.09 2.22
Brahmin/Chhetri 42 22 58 55.56 2.78
Dalit 8 5 4 9.97 3.32
Chepang/Magar 6 0 9 5.52 2.76
Total 143 39 220 164.14
2.45

30

Stall feeding (26.87%) for livestock was more prominent than open grazing (10.45%) in
the study area. However all the remaining HHs (62.8%) having livestock were
practicing both stall feeding as well as open grazing.
Total fodder demand of the studied community was found to be 1596.15 tons/year and
total mean fodder demand was 23.82 tons/year/HH. Mean fodder demand per year per
livestock was lowest (4.71 tons/yr/LU) for landless, while others had demand near to
the total average (9.72 tons/yr/LU). Table 5.16 and Table 5.17 elucidate the fodder
demand in relation to LU on the basis of land holding and ethnicity, respectively.
Table 5.16 Fodder Demand as per the Land Holding
Fodder Demand (tons/yr)
Land Holding N* Total
Demand
Mean demand/HH
(tons/yr)
Total
Livestock Unit
Mean demand/HH
(tons/yr/LU)
Landless 1 9 9.00 1.91 4.71
Small Farm 29 632.85 21.82 61.84 10.23
Medium Farm 23 496.05 21.57 55.50 8.94
Big Farm 14 458.25 32.73 44.89 10.21
Total 67 1596.15 23.82 164.14 9.72
*HHs having no livestock were not considered
Table 5.17 Fodder Demand as per Ethnicity
Fodder Demand (Tons/Year)
Ethnic Group N* Total
Demand
Mean demand/HH
(tons/yr)
Total Livestock
Unit
Mean demand/HH
(tons/yr/LU)
Tamang 42 819.85 19.52 93.09 8.81
Brahmin/Chhetri 20 597.8 29.89 55.56 10.76
Dalit 3 121.5 40.5 9.97 12.19
Chepang/Magar 2 57 28.5 5.52 10.33
Total 67 1596.15 23.82 164.14 9.72
*HHs having no livestock were not considered

The fodder demand was fulfilled largely from BZCFs as 71.64% of the livestock
holding HHs were fully or partially dependent on it, while remaining HHs fulfilled their
fodder demand from their own land (Figure 5). HHs having small farm relied more on
buffer zone community forests than others and landless HHs were absolutely dependent
on buffer zone community forests (Figure 6).
31


Figure 5: Green fodder source

Figure 6: Green fodder source on the basis of farm size
Correlation analysis performed between different fodder and livestock related variables
as shown in Table 5.18 confirmed high positive correlation (r=0.940)between LU and
fodder demand (tons/year). Similar analysis which was carried out between farm size
versus fodder demand and LU versus farm size displayed positive correlation as well
(Table 5.18).

Table 5.18 Correlation Between Different Parameters
Variables Pearson's correlation coefficient (r)
Farm size (ha) Vs Livestock unit 0.255**
Farm size(ha) Vs Fodder demand (tons/year) 0.315**
Livestock unit Vs Fodder demand (tons/year) 0.940*
Family size Vs Fodder Demand 0.403*
*Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed) **Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (1- tailed)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
BZCF own land BZCF+own land
Fodder source
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Landless Small farm Medium
farm
Large farm
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

H
H
s
Farm size
BZCF+Own
land
Own land
BZCF
32

5.2.8 Energy Sources
For lighting purpose, kerosene and electricity were the energy sources used by the
locals, but 17 (24.29%) of the HHs were absolutely dependent on kerosene as they had
no access to electricity (Table 5.19). Fuel wood was the prime source of energy for
cooking food and making "kudo" (Animal feed) in all the 70 HHs (100%). For cooking
purpose, 9 HHs (12.86%) were using biogas along with fuel wood. Figure 7 and 8
illustrate biogas installation as per the ethnicity and farm size respectively.
Table 5.19 Sources of Energy
Energy Source Number of HHs Percent of Total HHs
Fuel wood 70 100.00
Kerosene 68 97.14
Electricity
a) Authorized 29 41.43
b) Unauthorized 24 34.29
c) No access 17 24.29
Biogas 9 12.86


Figure 7: Biogas plant installation as per ethnicity

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tamang Brahmin/Chhetri Dalits Chepang/Magar
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Ethnicity
33


Figure 8: Biogas installation as per the farm size

5.2.8.1 Fuel Wood
Out of the total 70 sample HHs, 65 HHs (92.86%) wholly or partially depended upon
BZCFs for fuel wood, while 21 HHs (30.00%) were entirely reliant on it. The total fuel
wood extraction was found to be 122.72 tons/year out of which 40.28 ton/year was
entirely taken from BZCFs solely (Table 5.20). The per capita fuel wood consumption
of the sample HHs was 0.25 tons/year, while mean fuel wood consumption per HH
accounted for 1.75 tons/year.
Table 5.20 Various Sources of Fuel Wood
Fuel wood Source Number of
HHs
Total Fuel wood
extraction
(tons/year)
Distribution
(%)
Mean Fuel wood
extraction (tons/year/HH)
BZCF 21 (30.00%) 40.28 32.82 1.92
Own land 5 (7.14%) 7 5.70 1.40
BZCF + Own land 44 (62.86%) 75.44 61.47 1.71
Total 70 (100.00%) 122.72 100.00 1.75

Out of 43 Tamang HHs, 17 HHs (39.53%) were found to be extracting fuel wood
entirely from BZCFs, compared to 3 HHs (14.19%) from Brahmin/Chhetri family.
Similarly, 1 Chepang/Magar HH (33.33%) and no Dalit HH were using BZCFs (Figure
9). The small farm holders were extracting most of their fuel wood from BZCFs
whereas no big farm holders were extracting fuel wood from the community forests
(Figure 10). The medium farm holders had the highest mean fuel wood demand
(tons/year/HH) and landless had the lowest. The per capita fuel wood demand
(tons/year/person) was also highest for medium farm holders and lowest for landless
0
1
2
3
4
5
Landless Small farm Medium farm Big Farm
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Farm category
34

(Table 5.21). The mean fuel wood demands (tons/year/HH) of Tamang,
Brahmin/Chhetri, Dalit and Chepang/Magar HHs were 1.74, 1.81, 1.80 and 1.49
respectively. Tamangs had the highest per capita fuel wood demand while
Chepang/Magar had the lowest (Table 5.22).

Figure 9: Sources of fuel wood as per ethnicity

Figure 10: Sources of fuel wood as per farm size

Table 5.21 Fuel Wood Consumption of HHs as per Farm Size
Fuel wood consumption Landless Small farm Medium farm Big Farm
No. of HHs 2 31 23 14
Total (tons/yr) 2.08 51.20 42.72 26.72
Mean (tons/yr/HH) 1.04 1.65 1.86 1.91
Standard deviation 0.79 0.61 1.11 1.00
Per capita (tons/yr/person) 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.24

0 20 40 60
Tamang
Brahmin/Chhetri
Dalits
Chepang/Magar
Number of HHs
E
t
h
n
i
c

g
r
o
u
p
CF
own land
CF + own
land
0 20 40
Landless
Small farm
Medium farm
Large farm
Number of HHs
F
a
r
m

s
i
z
e
CF
own land
CF + own
land
35

Table 5.22 Fuel Wood Consumption of HHs as per the Ethnicity
Fuel wood consumption Tamang Brahmin/Chhetri Dalit Chepang/Magar
No. of HHs 43 21 3 3
Total (tons/yr) 74.92 37.92 5.40 4.48
Mean (tons/yr/HH) 1.74 1.81 1.80 1.49
Standard deviation 0.89 0.95 0.60 0.96
Per capita
(tons/yr/person)
0.27 0.25 0.22 0.17

Table 5.23 Correlation of Fuel Wood Demand with Different Parameters
Variables Pearson's correlation coefficient(r)
Fuel wood demand (tons/year) Vs Farm size 0.227*
Fuel wood demand (tons/year) Vs Family size 0.458**
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
5.3 Buffer Zone Community Forest
The study area included 7 community forests with a total area of 2039.43 ha with 1400
HHs wholly or partially dependent on the forest resources. Out of the 7 buffer zone
community forests, the average forest area per HHs was highest (2.37ha/HH) for Lokhit
BZCF, while lowest (0.39ha/HH) for Janajagriti BZCF (Table 5.24).

Table 5.24 Average Buffer Zone Community Forest Area (ha) per HHs
Buffer zone community forest Area (ha) No. of HHs in
the user group
Average forest area
per HH (ha)
Jankalyan Kalika BZCF 293.2 135 2.17
Jana Jagriti BZCF 141 363 0.39
Janahit BZCF 434.63 184 2.36
Garuishanker BZCF 300 234 1.28
Chetana BZCF 164.6 153 1.08
Manakamana BZCF 422 211 2
Lokhit BZCF 284 120 2.37
Total 2039.4 1400 1.46
Source: Operational plans of respective BZCFs


36

5.3.1 Acquaintance with Buffer Zone Activity and Budget Allocation
Most of the respondents were unacquainted with buffer zone activity at all. Twenty out
of the total 70 respondents found the activities of buffer zone to be unsatisfactory, while
one of them was satisfied with the activities. Similarly, when asked about budget
allocation, only 7 were aware about the budget allocation; 5 of them said that the budget
is insufficient while 2 told that the budget was sufficient.

Figure 11: Acquaintance with Buffer Zone activity

5.3.2 Acquaintance with the Condition of the Buffer Zone Community Forests
Of the total respondent, 47 (67.15%) respondents perceived that the condition of buffer
zone community forests has improved than the past and only 7 (10%) said that present
condition of buffer zone community forests is very good, whereas 15 (21.40%) had no
idea about the condition of the forests (Table 5.25).
Table 5.25 Acquaintance with the Condition of BZCFs
Condition of BZCFs Opinions
Very good Good Satisfactory Bad No idea
Past 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 55 (78.60) 15 (21.40)
Present 7 (10.00) 13 (18.60) 27 (38.60) 8 (11.40) 15 (21.40)

5.4 Wildlife
5.4.1 Status of Wildlife
Birds and monkey were the most frequent wildlife reported by the villagers during
informal interviews; while a few reported that jackal and leopard were also seen. Only
12.86% reported wildlife population as increasing, while 18.57% said that wildlife
49; 70%
20; 29%
1; 1%
No idea
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
37

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Increasing Decreasing No change No idea
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
Wildlife population
population were decreasing basically due to habitat destruction and 48.57% said there
were no significant changes in wildlife population (Figure 12).







Figure 12: Respondents' perception on change in wildlife population
5.4.2 Problems caused by wildlife
Only, 19 HHs (27.14%) reported crop damage by parrots and monkeys which was not
so significant. Apart from this, no other species was reported for crop depredation.
There were not any human casualties or livestock loss, or any damage to physical assets
within two years.

38

5.5 Vegetation Analysis
5.5.1 Tree Stratum
Out of 41 sample plots 1 plot had no tree species. There were 326 live trees of 26
different species recorded in the sample plots. The maximum tree diameter noted was
118cm and the total tree density was 198.78/ha. Shorea robusta had the highest density
(111.59/ha) and represented 56.13% of the total tree density followed by Schima
wallichi (Density 21.75/ha; Relative Density 10.74%) (Table 5.26). Total basal area per
hectare of all species was found to be 23.36 m
2
/

ha and Shorea robusta alone
represented 76.11% of it. The importance value index (IVI) was also highest for Shorea
robusta followed by Schima wallichi and Terminalia alata.
Table 5.26 Density, Frequency, Basal area and IVI of plant species at tree stratum
Name of Species D
(No/ha)
RD
(%)
F
(%)
RF
(%)
BA
(m
2
ha
-1
)
RBA
(%)
IVI
Shorea robusta 111.59 56.13 85.37 27.56 17.78 76.11 159.80
Schima wallichi 21.34 10.74 36.59 11.81 1.37 5.85 28.40
Terminalia alata 9.15 4.60 24.39 7.87 0.53 2.25 14.73
Lagerstroemia parviflora 7.93 3.99 21.95 7.09 0.47 2.03 13.11
Semecarpus anacardium 6.71 3.37 21.95 7.09 0.31 1.32 11.78
Pinus roxburghii 6.10 3.07 7.32 2.36 1.05 4.48 9.91
Dellenia pentagyna 4.27 2.15 12.20 3.94 0.53 2.28 8.36
Phyllanthus emblica 3.66 1.84 12.20 3.94 0.05 0.20 5.98
Elaegnus parviflora 3.66 1.84 4.88 1.57 0.19 0.81 4.23
Cleistocalyx operculatus 3.66 1.84 12.20 3.94 0.09 0.39 6.16
Mallotus philippinensis 3.66 1.84 9.76 3.15 0.14 0.62 5.61
Careya arborea 3.05 1.53 7.32 2.36 0.12 0.53 4.43
Badkaulo(?) 1.83 0.92 9.76 3.15 0.11 0.48 4.55
Terminalia bellirica 1.83 0.92 7.32 2.36 0.22 0.96 4.24
Premna integrifolia 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.09 1.49
Terminalia chebula 1.22 0.61 4.88 1.57 0.10 0.41 2.60
Eugenia jambolana 1.22 0.61 7.32 2.36 0.07 0.31 3.28
Holarrhena pubescens 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.06 1.46
Tiyari (?) 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.05 0.22 1.62
Airikath (?) 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.10 1.20
Michelia champaca 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.07 1.17
Ficus lacor 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.03 1.13
Sapium insigne 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.05 1.14
Murraya koenigii 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.05 1.15
Ficus auriculata 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.05 0.22 1.32
Albizia lucidor 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.07 1.16
Total 198.78 100.00 309.76 100.00 23.36 100.00 300.00
? = Local name, D = Density, RD = Relative density, F = Frequency, RF = Relative frequency, BA =
Basal area, RBA = Relative basal area, IVI = Importance value index, ha = Hectare
39

From the stand size classification, it was observed that largest proportions of trees were
of small timber class (38.34%); while, sapling, poles and large timber were 11.04%,
33.13% and 17.48%, respectively. Meanwhile, height classifications of trees showed
that higher percentage (38.65%) of trees were of intermediate height class i.e. in the
range of 10m to 20m.

Fig 13: Stand size classification of trees

Fig 14: Height classification of trees
Of the 41 studied plots, 17 plots were medium stocked crown cover; while, 13 were
poor and 10 were well stocked, and 1 plot was categorized for no stocking as it had no
trees (Table5.27).

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Large saw
timber
Smal saw
timber
Poles Saplings
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Stand size
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
<10 m 10-20m 20-30m >30m
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
Height class
Small Timber
Mean DBH=32.83 cm
Standard Dev. =20 cm
Total No. of trees=326
Mean =15.20 m
Standard Dev. =7.18 m
Total No. of trees=326
Large Timber
40

Table 5.27 Stocking of the Forests
Stocking Crown cover (%) No. of plots Area (m
2
) Percent
No stocking - 1 400 2.44
Poorly stocked 10-39 13 5200 31.71
Medium stocked 40-69 17 6800 41.46
Well stocked 70 10 4000 24.39

5.5.2 Shrub Stratum
A total of 1907 individuals from 59 different plant species were documented in the 82
shrub plots. The total density of all the species in the shrub stratum was 9302.44/ha in
which Shorea robusta alone represented 43.00% of the total density (Table 5.28). The
values of frequency, dominance and IVI were also highest for Shorea robusta followed
by Eupatorium odoratum.
Table 5.28 Density, Frequency, Dominance and IVI of Plant Species at Shrub Stratum
Name of species D
(No/ha)
RD
(%)
F (%) RF
(%)
Do RDo
(%)
IVI
Climber Species
Marsdenia tinctoria 39.02 0.42 4.88 1.07 0.00001760 0.0080 1.49
Dioscorea bulbifera 14.63 0.16 2.44 0.53 0.00000247 0.0011 0.69
Bauhinia vahlii 9.76 0.10 2.44 0.53 0.00000110 0.0005 0.64
Piper longum 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Smilax zeylanica 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Sub-total 73.17 0.79 12.20 2.67 0.00002172 0.0098 3.46
Herb Species
Eupatorium odoratum 1443.90 15.52 51.22 11.20 0.02409251 10.8928 37.61
Thysanolaena maxima 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Asparagus racemosus 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Sub-total 1453.66 15.63 53.66 11.73 0.02409306 10.8930 38.25
Shrub Species
Clerodendrum viscosum 429.27 4.61 23.17 5.07 0.00212943 0.9628 10.64
Inula cappa 360.98 3.88 21.95 4.80 0.00150578 0.6808 9.36
Phoenix humilis 356.10 3.83 20.73 4.53 0.00146536 0.6625 9.02
Pogostemon benghalensis 360.98 3.88 12.20 2.67 0.00150578 0.6808 7.23
Colebrookea oppositifolia 200.00 2.15 14.63 3.20 0.00046224 0.2090 5.56
Lyonia ovalifolia 87.80 0.94 10.98 2.40 0.00008909 0.0403 3.38
Bhogate (?) 48.78 0.52 7.32 1.60 0.00002750 0.0124 2.14
Mussaenda frondosa 39.02 0.42 6.10 1.33 0.00001760 0.0080 1.76
Clerodendron infortunatum 34.15 0.37 6.10 1.33 0.00001347 0.0061 1.71
Premna integrifolia 19.51 0.21 3.66 0.80 0.00000440 0.0020 1.01
Maesa chisia 14.63 0.16 3.66 0.80 0.00000247 0.0011 0.96
Artemesia vulgaris 43.90 0.47 1.22 0.27 0.00002227 0.0101 0.75
Xeromphis spinosa 14.63 0.16 2.44 0.53 0.00000247 0.0011 0.69
41

Phoenix spp. 9.76 0.10 2.44 0.53 0.00000110 0.0005 0.64
Callicarpa macrophylla 24.39 0.26 1.22 0.27 0.00000687 0.0031 0.53
Shyal dhoti (?) 9.76 0.10 1.22 0.27 0.00000110 0.0005 0.37
Rubus paniculatus 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Phyllanthus parvifolius 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
UK S1 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
UK S2 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Sub-total 2073.17 22.29 143.90 31.47 0.00725806 3.2815 57.03
Tree Species
Shorea robusta 4000.00 43.00 81.71 17.87 0.18489549 83.5956 144.46
Mallotus phillippensis 492.68 5.30 36.59 8.00 0.00280505 1.2682 14.56
Schima wallichi 317.07 3.41 20.73 4.53 0.00116178 0.5253 8.47
Bad kaulo (?) 200.00 2.15 15.85 3.47 0.00046224 0.2090 5.83
Bridelia retusa 112.20 1.21 9.76 2.13 0.00014546 0.0658 3.41
Lagerstroemia parviflora 87.80 0.94 10.98 2.40 0.00008909 0.0403 3.38
Murraya koenigii 78.05 0.84 10.98 2.40 0.00007039 0.0318 3.27
Woodfordia fruticosa 78.05 0.84 8.54 1.87 0.00007039 0.0318 2.74
Garuga pinnata 43.90 0.47 6.10 1.33 0.00002227 0.0101 1.82
Cleistocalyx operculatus 58.54 0.63 4.88 1.07 0.00003960 0.0179 1.71
Syzygium cumini 29.27 0.31 4.88 1.07 0.00000990 0.0045 1.39
Sapium insigne 19.51 0.21 3.66 0.80 0.00000440 0.0020 1.01
Careya arborea 14.63 0.16 3.66 0.80 0.00000247 0.0011 0.96
Pinus wallichiana 24.39 0.26 2.44 0.53 0.00000687 0.0031 0.80
Terminalia alata 19.51 0.21 2.44 0.53 0.00000440 0.0020 0.75
Myrsine semiserrata 19.51 0.21 2.44 0.53 0.00000440 0.0020 0.75
Semecarpus anacardium 9.76 0.10 2.44 0.53 0.00000110 0.0005 0.64
Gund (?) 9.76 0.10 2.44 0.53 0.00000110 0.0005 0.64
Tiyari (?) 9.76 0.10 2.44 0.53 0.00000110 0.0005 0.64
Ficus semicordata 19.51 0.21 1.22 0.27 0.00000440 0.0020 0.48
Ficus lacor 9.76 0.10 1.22 0.27 0.00000110 0.0005 0.37
Walsura trijuga 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Phyllanthus emblica 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Psidium guajava 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Alstonia scholaris 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Syzygium spp. 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Wendlandia puberula 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Castanopsis inidica 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Engelhardtia spicata 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Dellenia pentagyna 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Oroxylam indicum 4.88 0.05 1.22 0.27 0.00000027 0.0001 0.32
Sub-total 5702.44 61.30 247.56 54.13 0.18980578 85.82 201.25
Total 9302.44 100.00 457.32 100.00 0.22117862 100.00 300.00
? = Local name, D = Density, RD = Relative density, F = Frequency, RF = Relative frequency, Do =
Dominance, RDo = Relative Dominance, IVI = Importance value index, ha = Hectare, UK S1 and UK
S2= unidentified Shrub species
42

5.5.3 Herb Stratum
There were 734 individuals from 37 different species in the 82 herb plots and the total
density of all species was 89512.20/ha. The most dominant species was Imperata
cylindrica with density (number/ha), frequency (%), dominance and IVI as 7804.88,
9.76, 0.00875483 and 28.57 respectively.
Table 5.29 Density, Frequency, Dominance and IVI of Plant Species at Herb Stratum
Name of species D
(No/ha)
RD
(%)
F (%) RF
(%)
Do RDo
(%)
IVI
Climber
Marsdenia tinctoria 609.76 0.68 2.44 1.30 0.00005344 0.09 2.07
Piper longum 243.90 0.27 2.44 1.30 0.00000855 0.01 1.59
Trachelospermum lucidum 121.95 0.14 1.22 0.65 0.00000214 0.00 0.79
Sub-total 975.61 1.09 6.10 3.25 0.00006412 0.11 4.44
Grass
Cheilanthes anceps 6951.22 7.77 19.51 10.39 0.00694444 11.62 29.78
Imperata cylindrica 7804.88 8.72 9.76 5.19 0.00875483 14.65 28.57
Pogonatherum paniceum 6097.56 6.81 10.98 5.84 0.00534352 8.94 21.60
Cyathula capitata 4146.34 4.63 9.76 5.19 0.00247085 4.14 13.96
Cynodon dactylon 2439.02 2.72 7.32 3.90 0.00085496 1.43 8.05
Salim khar (?) 2682.93 3.00 2.44 1.30 0.00103451 1.73 6.03
Cyperus compressus 2073.17 2.32 2.44 1.30 0.00061771 1.03 4.65
Eulaliopsis binata 975.61 1.09 2.44 1.30 0.00013679 0.23 2.62
Sub-total 33170.73 37.06 64.63 34.42 0.02615762 43.78 115.25
Herb
Ageratum conyzoides 7317.07 8.17 10.98 5.84 0.00769468 12.88 26.90
Oxalis corniculata 5731.71 6.40 8.54 4.55 0.00472154 7.90 18.85
Saccharum spontaneum 5975.61 6.68 6.10 3.25 0.00513192 8.59 18.51
Furke (?) 3536.59 3.95 10.98 5.84 0.00179756 3.01 12.80
Nywal junge (?) 4390.24 4.90 2.44 1.30 0.00277008 4.64 10.84
Digitaria spp. 3048.78 3.41 8.54 4.55 0.00133588 2.24 10.19
Centella asiatica 3170.73 3.54 2.44 1.30 0.00144489 2.42 7.26
Eclipta prostrata 1829.27 2.04 6.10 3.25 0.00048092 0.80 6.10
Sporobolus diander 1097.56 1.23 6.10 3.25 0.00017313 0.29 4.76
Typha angustata 1463.41 1.63 4.88 2.60 0.00030779 0.52 4.75
Eupatorium odoratum 1219.51 1.36 2.44 1.30 0.00021374 0.36 3.02
Khasre unyu (?) 487.80 0.54 2.44 1.30 0.00003420 0.06 1.90
Haatkatuwa (?) 731.71 0.82 1.22 0.65 0.00007695 0.13 1.60
Chulthe ghas (?) 365.85 0.41 1.22 0.65 0.00001924 0.03 1.09
Thysanolaena maxima 243.90 0.27 1.22 0.65 0.00000855 0.01 0.94
Kumale (?) 243.90 0.27 1.22 0.65 0.00000855 0.01 0.94
Chitre banso (?) 121.95 0.14 1.22 0.65 0.00000214 0.00 0.79
Sub-total 40975.61 45.78 78.05 41.56 0.02622174 43.89 131.22
Shrub
Mimosa pudica 3414.63 3.81 7.32 3.90 0.00167573 2.80 10.52
Clerodenron infortunatum 1463.41 1.63 4.88 2.60 0.00030779 0.52 4.75
43

Desmodium laxiflorum 731.71 0.82 4.88 2.60 0.00007695 0.13 3.54
Spermadictyon suaveolens 1097.56 1.23 3.66 1.95 0.00017313 0.29 3.46
Inula cappa 609.76 0.68 2.44 1.30 0.00005344 0.09 2.07
Dendrocalamus strictus 731.71 0.82 1.22 0.65 0.00007695 0.13 1.60
Flemingia macrophylla 243.90 0.27 2.44 1.30 0.00000855 0.01 1.59
Mussaenda frondosa 243.90 0.27 1.22 0.65 0.00000855 0.01 0.94
Sub-total 8536.59 9.54 28.05 14.94 0.00238107 3.99 28.46
Tree
Shorea robusta 5853.66 6.54 10.98 5.84 0.00492459 8.24 20.63
Sub-total 5853.66 6.54 10.98 5.84 0.00492459 8.24 20.63
Total 89512.20 100.00 187.80 100.00 0.06 100.00 300.00
? = Local name, D = Density, RD = Relative density, F = Frequency, RF = Relative frequency, Do =
Dominance, RDo = Relative Dominance, IVI = Importance value index, ha = Hectare
5.5.4 Status of Forest
5.5.4.1 Biodiversity
The forests were managed and protected by buffer zone community forest user groups
(BZCFUGs). Grazing, fuel wood and fodder collection and timber harvesting practices
were customary. Table 5.30 portrays the status of forests in terms of various indices of
plant distribution.
Table 5.30 Dominance Index, Species Richness, Shannon Diversity Index and
Evenness Index of Different Plant Strata
Parameters Tree stratum Shrub stratum Herb stratum
Dominance Index 0.33 0.22 0.06
Species Richness 9.95 17.68 12.56
Shannon Diversity Index 0.81 0.99 1.44
Evenness Index 0.57 0.56 0.92

5.5.4.2 Regeneration
Among 31 tree species found in regenerating stage (<10cm DBH), Shorea robusta had
the highest density (529.27/ha). There was subsequent decrease in density with
increasing height. The total density of regenerating species was 728.66/ha (Table 5.31).

44

Table 5.31 Regeneration of Tree Species in Shrub Plots
Species
Density (No./Ha) of regenerating tree species according
to their height class
Total
Density
<1 m 1-2 m 2-4 m 4-6 m >6 m
Shorea robusta 411.59 90.85 15.85 9.76 1.22 529.27
Mallotus phillippensis 29.27 25.00 6.71 0.61 0.00 61.59
Schima wallichi 12.80 12.80 6.10 6.10 1.83 39.63
Bad kaulo (?) 10.98 6.71 6.71 0.61 0.00 25.00
Lagerstroemia parviflora 5.49 1.83 3.66 0.00 0.00 10.98
Woodfordia fruticosa 0.61 4.27 3.66 1.22 0.00 9.76
Murraya koenigii 5.49 3.05 0.61 0.61 0.00 9.76
Cleistocalyx operculatus 4.88 0.61 0.61 1.22 0.00 7.32
Garuga pinnata 3.66 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.49
Syzygium cumini 3.05 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.66
Pinus wallichiana 1.22 1.22 0.61 0.00 0.00 3.05
Terminalia alata 0.61 1.22 0.61 0.00 0.00 2.44
Myrsine semiserrata 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.44
Ficus semicordata 2.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.44
Sapium insigne 0.61 1.22 0.61 0.00 0.00 2.44
Careya arborea 0.00 1.22 0.61 0.00 0.00 1.83
Semecarpus anacardium 0.00 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 1.22
Gund (?) 0.61 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22
Ficus lacor 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 1.22
Tiyari (?) 0.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22
Walsura trijuga 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Phyllanthus emblica 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.61
Psidium guajava 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Alstonia scholaris 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.61
Syzygium spp. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.61
Bridelia retusa 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Wendlandia puberula 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61
Castanopsis inidica 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Engelhardtia spicata 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Dellenia pentagyna 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Oroxylam indicum 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.61
Total 496.95 156.71 49.39 21.95 3.66 728.66
?=Local name
5.5.4.3 Cut Stumps
Altogether 67 cut stumps of 12 different tree species were recorded in 18 out of 41
(43.90%) sampling plots and the total density of cut stumps was 40.85/ha. Shorea
robusta had the highest cut stump density (20.12/ha) followed by Mallotus
phillippinensis (6.10/ha) (Table 5.32). The highest density of cut stumps was for the
girth size <12.5cm followed by the girth size of 12.5-25 cm (Table 5.33). The average
45

girth size of cut stumps was found to be 17.57cm (Max: 125cm; Min: 3cm) lower in
comparison to average DBH (32.83cm) of live trees.
Table 5.32 Cut Stump Density
Species No. Cut Stump
Density
(No./ha)
Live Tree
Density
(No./Ha)
% of Cut stump compared to
live tree
Shorea robusta
33 20.12 111.59 18.03
Mallotus phillippinensis 10 6.10 3.66 166.67
Bad kaulo (?) 5 3.05 1.83 166.67
Schima wallichi 5 3.05 21.34 14.29
Terminalia alata 3 1.83 9.15 20.00
Lagerstroemia parviflora 2 1.22 7.93 15.38
Sapium insigne 2 1.22 0.61 200.00
Oujeinia oojeinensis 2 1.22 0.00 0.00
Oroxylam indicum 2 1.22 0.00 0.00
Syzygium cumini 1 0.61 1.22 50.00
Careya arborea 1 0.61 3.05 20.00
Murraya koenigii 1 0.61 0.61 100.00
Total
67 40.85 160.98 25.38
?= Local name

Table 5.33 Cut Stump Density as per the DBH Class
Species
Density (No/ha) of cut stump by DBH class Total
density (No/ha) <12.5 cm 12.5-25 cm 25-50 cm >50 cm
Shorea robusta 6.10 8.54 3.05 2.44 20.12
Mallotus phillippinensis 4.88 1.22 0.00 0.00 6.10
Bad kaulo (?) 3.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.05
Schima wallichi 2.44 0.00 0.61 0.00 3.05
Terminalia alata
0.00 1.22 0.00 0.61 1.83
Lagerstroemia parviflora
0.00 0.61 0.61 0.00 1.22
Sapium insigne
1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22
Oujeinia oojeinensis
1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22
Oroxylam indicum
1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22
Syzygium cumini
0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Careya arborea
0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Murraya koenigii
0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61
Total 21.95 11.59 4.27 3.05 40.85
? =Local name
5.5.4.4 Lopping
Out of 326 trees recorded, 76 trees (23.31%) were found to be lopped with total density
of lopped trees being 46.34/ha (Table 5.34). The intensity of lopping was least to high;
however very high lopping intensity (>75%) was not recorded for any species. The
lopped species with highest density was Shorea robusta (22.56/ha) (Table 5.34).
46

Table 5.34 Lopping Intensity of the Tree Species
Lopping intensity Frequency Percent Density (No./ha)
Least (<25%) 22 28.95 13.41
Medium (25-50%) 47 61.84 28.66
High (50-75%) 7 9.21 4.27
Very high (>75%) 0 0.00 0.00
Total 76 100 46.34

Table 5.35 Density of Lopped Species as per the Lopping Intensity
Species
Density of lopped species by lopping intensity
(No./ha)
Total
density
(No./ha) Least Medium High
Shorea robusta 7.93 12.20 2.44 22.56
Schima wallichi 2.44 4.27 0.00 6.71
Semecarpus anacardium 0.00 2.44 0.61 3.05
Pinus roxburghii 1.83 1.22 0.00 3.05
Terminalia alata 0.61 1.22 0.61 2.44
Lagerstroemia parviflora 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.22
Premna integrifolia 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.22
Holarrhena pubescens 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.22
Tiyari (?) 0.61 0.61 0.00 1.22
Phyllanthus emblica 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.61
Terminalia bellirica 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.61
Elaegnus parviflora 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.61
Dellenia pentagyna 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.61
?=Local name
5.5.5 Annual and Sustainable Yield
5.5.5.1 Volume and Biomass of Tree
The total standing volume and total biomass per hectare were found to be 36.2831
m
3
/ha

and 42299.89kg/ha respectively (Table 5.36). Shorea robusta, Pinus roxburghii,
and Schima wallichi shared the biggest proportion of total standing volume and
biomass.

47

Table 5.36 Volume and Biomass of Tree Species
Tree species
Standing
Volume
(m
3
/ha)
Total
stem
biomass
(kg/ha)
Branch
Biomass
(kg/ha)
Foliage
Biomass
(kg/ha)
Total
Biomass
(kg/ha)
% of
total
volume
% of
total
biomass
Shorea robusta 25.0028 22002.46 7533.46 1470.35 31006.27 68.91 73.30
Pinus roxburghii 3.2100 1284.01 626.60 275.67 2186.29 8.85 5.17
Schima wallichi 2.3184 1597.36 374.27 62.19 2033.82 6.39 4.81
Lagerstroemia parviflora 1.3195 1121.56 627.96 55.99 1805.50 3.64 4.27
Terminalia alata 0.8031 762.96 380.07 38.60 1181.63 2.21 2.79
Dellenia pentagyna 0.7819 562.94 307.73 26.20 896.87 2.15 2.12
Terminalia bellirica 0.6090 438.50 223.69 20.72 682.90 1.68 1.61
Semecarpus anacardium 0.3737 269.07 131.47 14.33 414.87 1.03 0.98
Mallotus philippinensis 0.2977 214.33 106.42 10.94 331.70 0.82 0.78
Elaegnus parviflora 0.2966 213.53 107.74 10.42 331.69 0.82 0.78
Terminalia chebula 0.2569 184.98 91.75 9.47 286.21 0.71 0.68
Careya arborea 0.2125 153.04 76.66 7.62 237.32 0.59 0.56
Badkaulo (?) 0.1985 142.89 71.32 7.19 221.40 0.55 0.52
Eugenia jambolana 0.1229 94.61 47.28 4.74 146.63 0.34 0.35
Cleistocalyx operculatus 0.1231 88.63 41.72 5.16 135.51 0.34 0.32
Phyllanthus emblica 0.0636 45.83 29.56 5.08 80.47 0.18 0.19
Tiyari (?) 0.0525 37.83 18.79 1.93 58.55 0.14 0.14
Airikath (?) 0.0435 31.34 13.88 2.07 47.29 0.12 0.11
Albizia lucidor 0.0457 30.79 13.64 2.03 46.46 0.13 0.11
Ficus auriculata 0.0307 22.09 11.29 10.38 43.77 0.08 0.10
Premna integrifolia 0.0370 26.62 11.79 1.76 40.18 0.10 0.09
Murraya koenigii 0.0287 20.66 9.15 1.36 31.17 0.08 0.07
Holarrhena pubescens 0.0144 10.38 4.60 0.69 15.67 0.04 0.04
Michelia champaca 0.0181 9.00 3.99 0.59 13.58 0.05 0.03
Sapium insigne 0.0120 8.62 3.82 0.57 13.01 0.03 0.03
Ficus lacor 0.0103 7.39 3.27 0.49 11.15 0.03 0.03
Total 36.2831 29381.42 10871.92 2046.54 42299.89 100.00 100.00
?=Local name

48

5.5.5.2 Sustainable Yield of Forest Resources
Table 5.37 presents sustainable yield of fuel wood and timber. The forest had a
sustainable fuel wood and timber supply of 1610.30kg/ha/yr and 198.02kg/ha/yr for
which Shorea robusta had the highest contribution followed by Schima wallichi.
Table 5.37 Sustainable Yield of Fuel Wood and Timber (Detailed calculation in Annex
III)
Tree species
Annual
stem yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Annual
branch
yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Annual
foliage yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Sustainable
Fuel wood
yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Sustainable
Timber yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Shorea robusta 1106.72 378.18 73.08 1187.01 149.41
Schima wallichi 77.95 18.41 3.36 76.21 10.52
Pinus roxburghii 62.66 30.83 14.91 75.68 8.46
Lagerstroemia parviflora 54.73 30.90 3.03 69.68 7.39
Terminalia alata 37.23 18.70 2.09 45.31 5.03
Dellenia pentagyna 27.47 15.14 1.42 34.64 3.71
Terminalia bellirica 21.40 11.01 1.12 26.27 2.89
Semecarpus anacardium 13.13 6.47 0.78 15.87 1.77
Mallotus philippinensis 10.46 5.24 0.59 12.71 1.41
Elaegnus parviflora 10.42 5.30 0.56 12.74 1.41
Terminalia chebula 9.03 4.51 0.51 10.97 1.22
Careya arborea 7.47 3.77 0.41 9.11 1.01
Badkaulo (?) 6.97 3.51 0.39 8.49 0.94
Eugenia jambolana 4.62 2.33 0.26 5.63 0.62
Cleistocalyx operculatus 4.32 2.05 0.28 5.16 0.58
Phyllanthus emblica 2.24 1.45 0.27 3.02 0.30
Tiyari (?) 1.85 0.92 0.10 2.24 0.25
Airikath (?) 1.53 0.68 0.11 1.78 0.21
Albizia lucidor 1.50 0.67 0.11 1.75 0.20
Premna integrifolia 1.30 0.58 0.10 1.52 0.18
Ficus auriculata 1.08 0.56 0.56 1.32 0.15
Murraya koenigii 1.01 0.45 0.07 1.18 0.14
Holarrhena pubescens 0.51 0.23 0.04 0.59 0.07
Michelia champaca 0.44 0.20 0.03 0.51 0.06
Sapium insigne 0.42 0.19 0.03 0.49 0.06
Ficus lacor 0.36 0.16 0.03 0.42 0.05
Total 1466.82 542.43 104.25 1610.30 198.02
*=Local name

49

5.5.5.3 Annual Yield of Green Fodder
The sustainable annual yield of green fodder was calculated on the basis of total
digestible nutrient (TDN) factor (HMG, 1988b).
Table 5.38 Annual Yield of Green Fodder in Unit III of Handikhola BZ Area
Land use category TDN yield factor Area Annual TDN yield (tons/year)
Hardwood forest 0.34 tons/ha/yr 2039.4 693.40
TDN= Total Digestible Nutrient
5.5.5.4 Estimated Resource Demand and Supply
Table 5.39 illustrates the estimated annual resource demand of the households and total
sustainable supply from the buffer zone community forests. There was a surplus of
sustainable fuel wood supply from the forests, while a huge gap between fodder demand
and its sustainable supply from the forests was observed.
Table 5.39 Estimated Resource Demand and Supply
Parameters Value
Total forest area (ha) 2039.40
Total No. of households in the study area 1400
Estimated No. of households using fuel wood 1400
Estimated No. of households using fodder 1340
Sustainable fuel wood yield from forests (tons/yr)
1
3284.05
Total estimated need of fuel wood (tons/yr)
2
2454.40
Fuel wood surplus (tons/yr) 829.85
Sustainable Green Fodder Yield From forests of VDC (TDN in tons/yr)
3
693.40
Total estimated green fodder need (tons/yr)
4
30554.87
Deficit green fodder (tons/yr) -29861.48


1
Total sustainable fuel wood supply from all the BZCFs was 1610.30 kg/ha/yr and the total forest area
was 2039.40 ha. Therefore, total sustainable fuel wood yield = (1610.301000)2039.40 =
3284.05tons/yr
2
All 70 sample households were using fuel wood amounting to a total of 122.72 tons/yr. So 100% of the
households (i.e. all 1400 households) were considered to be using fuel wood. Hence total fuel wood need
of the whole study area =1400 (122.72/70) = 2454.40 tons/yr.
3
This only shows the total fodder supply from forests using TDN value (0.34 tons/ha/yr), but for the
fodder need the households largely depended on their private land and pastures.
4
Out of 70 sample households, 67 (95.71%) households had livestock. So estimated number of
households with livestock = 95.71% of 1400=1340. As average fodder need of the sample HHs = 1596.15
tons/yr, total fodder need of the whole study area = 1340 (1596.16/70)=30554.87 tons/yr.
50

CHAPTER: SIX
DISCUSSION
For the convenience, discussion part has been made into two broad categories namely:
1) Socio-economic analysis. 2) Vegetation analysis
6.1 Socio-economic Analysis
6.1.1 Demographic Characteristics and Education
BZ encompasses populations from varied ethnic groups and social status having
different well-beings in the community. Such setup has the direct relationship with the
conservation of PAs (Walkie, et al., 2006). The rapid in-migration in the developing
countries is the main demographic issue confronting in PAs (Sherbinin &
Freudenberger, 1998). In the present study, most of the sampled HHs (75.71%) were
early settlers (Residence period >30 years) with Tamangs as the dominant ethnic groups
(61.43% of sampled HHs) indigenous to the area; while second largest proportion, the
Brahmin/Chhetri (22.86%) had mostly migrated from the hilly regions.
Age structure of studied HHs revealed that large proportion (56.81%) of population
were between 15-59 age class and population below 15 years age (36.57%) was
comparatively less. As opposed to it, DNPWC/PPP (2006) reported 48% population of
15-59 age class and 46% population 1-14 age class in the whole BZ area of Parsa
Wildlife Reserve. The population under 15 in the study area was high. This showed a
growing population, which could lead to increased pressure on BZCF.
The average family size in the study area was 6.91/HH which was higher than national
average (5.6/HH) as well as district average (5.52/HH) (CBS, 2006) and Handikhola
VDC average (6.18/HH) (DNPWC/PCP, 2003); while, similar study conducted by
Dhakal (2007) in Kolhuwa Buffer Zone VDC of Nawalparasi found higher average
family size (7.10/HH). The average family size was highest among the backward
considered Chepang/Magar HHs (9/HH) and least among the Tamang HHs (6.53/HH).
Average family size was bigger with larger land holding, except for medium farm
holders. Family size played a crucial role in resources utilization and conservation as
evident from the positive correlation of family size with fodder and fuel wood demand
(Table 5.17 and Table 5.22). The ratio of male to female population was 1.10, which
51

was different (0.98) than the whole BZ area of Parsa Wildlife Reserve (DNPWC/PCP,
2006).
Number of joint and nuclear families were equal (50% each) among the sample HHs,
while nuclear family was more common in Chepang/Magar (nuclear to joint HH ratio:
2.00) and Tamang HHs (nuclear to joint HH ratio: 1.26). Joint family had more fodder
demand (60.84% of the total demand).
Education and poverty is contemporary to each other in the contextual scenario of
Nepal, since most of the marginalized poor live in rural areas; they have less access to
education and are trapped in a vicious circle of poverty (ADB, 2005). Literacy rate
(80.37%) was higher compared to district average (62%) and VDC average (58.32%)
(DNPWC/PCP, 2003), which showed the rising literacy trend. Among all literates,
61.08% had primary education and 27.27% had education between class 6 and SLC,
while only 11.65% had education above SLC. It indicated that a large proportion of
students drop out after primary level of education. Only 0.46% of the population had
graduate/higher level of education which was represented only from Tamang and
Brahmin/Chhetri HHs (Table 5.4). Illiteracy was most prominent among small farm
holders (22.16%) and large farm holders had better access to higher education (Table
5.5). Higher literacy rate and better access to higher education among Brahmin/Chhetri
and Tamang groups, and large farm holders might be because of their better economic
conditions than other groups.
6.1.2 Landholding, Agriculture and Food Sufficiency
As per Joshi (1999), a family of 7 members requires 2 ha of land to provide enough
food (per capita need: 0.286 ha) but the per capita land holding in unit 3 of Handikhola
BZ area was found to be 0.077 ha, resulting in high proportion (64.29%) of deficit HHs
in the BZ VDC though DNPWC/PCP (2003) claimed 42.14% of deficit HHs in the
VDC. Average farm size of the sample HHs was found to be 0.53 ha/HH which was
smaller compared to district average (0.58 ha/HH) (CBS, 2006). This shows that
agriculture is practiced only at subsistence level. The total food production and hence
food Availability was found to be increasing with increasing land (Figure: 4).
Brahmin/Chhetri had the highest food availability as they had the greatest share of mean
(0.772 ha/HH) and per-capita (0.107ha) land holding (Table 5.10). Food insecurity was
most prominent among Dalit and Chepang/Magar HHs.
52

Of the total privately owned land, bari (land without irrigation) was predominant
(73.66%) while khet (irrigated land) occupied only 23.57% of the farm land and kudar
(private range land) occupied 2.77%. This may be another eminent reason for food
insufficiency. The land-poor households had to rely on other alternative sources of
income for their livelihood such as wage labour, skilled labour, rearing livestock,
business etc (Table 5.13). Livestock rearing was prominent off-farm alternative income
source as 95.71% of the HHs was found to rear livestock. Livestock unit was found to
be increasing with farm size (Table 5.14). Most of the HHs (62.8%) practiced both
grazing as well as stall feeding probably because most of the BZCFs were adjacent to
the village.
6.1.3 Energy and Forest Resources: Dependency and Consumption
Neupane (2007b) gave emphasis on installing biogas in order to reduce the pressure on
forests and also the local effort in reducing global warming. In the present study, only 9
out of 70 (12.86%) sample HHs were found using biogas. As an average sized biogas
can save 4.5 metric tons of firewood annually (Gurung, 2007), the study area needs
more of it so as to reduce pressure on the BZCFs. The main energy source for cooking
purpose was fuel wood as all 70 sample HHs were using fuel wood, while for lighting
purpose, kerosene and electricity were used. A large proportion of the HHs (34.29%)
were using electricity out of theft and 24.29% of the HHs (mostly Tamang HHs from
Manakamana BZCFUG) were devoid of electricity as electricity lines were not
extended their area.
The mean fodder demand of the HHs was 23.82 tons/HH/year, however, variations as
per the land holding and livestock units were observed. Livestock holding varied as per
the ethnic groups and, fodder demand also varied accordingly. The large requirement of
fodder (30554.87 tons/year) could not be fulfilled by BZCFs alone, so the HHs largely
depended on their private lands and pastures and many grazed their livestock as well.
Out of the 70 sample HHs, 65 (92.86%) were wholly or partially dependent on BZCFs
for fuel wood, while 21 (30.00%) HHs entirely relied on them (Table 5.20). This
indicates a substantial pressure on the BZCFs; though, sustainable supply of fuel wood
from BZCFs was found to be surplus over the demand of the HHs because the potential
threat in the near future cannot be uncared-for. Tamang group had the highest per capita
fuel wood demand (0.27ton/year) which might be due to their large fuel wood need for
making liquor.
53

6.1.4 Buffer Zone Community Forests
Of the total, 47 (67.15%) respondents perceived that the condition of BZCFs had
improved and 48.57% said there had been no significant change in wildlife population,
while 18.57% said wildlife population was decreasing. The average forest area per HH
was highest (2.37ha/HH) for Lokhit BZCF, while lowest (0.39ha/HH) for Janajagriti
BZCF (Table 5.24), which suggests Lokhit BZCF was under lower pressure than others.
Most of the respondents were unacquainted with buffer zone activity at all and a very
few respondents were aware about the budget allocation.
6.2 Vegetation Analysis
Ninety eight plant species of trees, shrubs, herbs and climbers were identified in the
community forests of unit III of Handikhola BZUC. The area comprised of Tarai Mixed
Hardwood Forest and Sal Forest.
6.2.1 Tree Stratum
The total density of trees was 198.78/ha and Shorea robusta was found to be the
dominant species with density 111.59/ha. Webb and Shah (2003) found the density of
Shorea robusta in natural Sal forest of Central Tarai to be 252.5/ha. The study carried
out by Bhuju and Yonzon (2004) in Churiya region of central Nepal including Chitwan
area found the density of trees to be 774/ha. Similarly, study done by Karki (2004) in
Community Forest and National Forest of Churiamai VDC of Makwanpur District
found total 745 trees per hectare. Basnet (2007) in his study in Gitanagar BZ VDC of
Chitwan national park, found the Density of Shorea robusta (Dominant Species) to be
122.92/ha (Total Density: 125/ha). The low tree density in the study area is probably
because of intense grazing due to which very few seedlings and saplings grow into
trees. This might also be owed to anthropogenic pressure as the incidence of human
settlements and farming practices were seen inside the CFs. The Shannon diversity
index ( H ) of trees in present study was found to be 0.81, while Timilsina, et.al. (2007)
in their study in western Tarai found it to be 0.82. This indicated that the community
forests of Handikhola was more degraded than the Sal forest of central Tarai,
Churiamai VDC and Churia region of central Nepal as a whole. This might also be
related with the anthropogenic disturbance, as evidenced by high density of cut stump of
Shorea robusta in the present case (20.12/ha, Table: 5.32) compared to that of 9.08/ha in
case of Basnet (2007).
54

6.2.2 Shrub Stratum
The present study accounted 59 species of plants in the shrub stratum with a total
density of 9302.44/ha. K.C. (2007) found the density of plant species at shrub stratum to
be 51720/ha and Straede, et.al. (2002) found it to be 120000/ha which were much
higher than that found in the present study. This might be due to the intense grazing
round the year and the extensive forest fire during dry season. Furthermore, haphazard
settlements were found even inside the BZCFs. The evenness index was 0.56, higher
than that found by Tandan (2008) (e=0.38) and Pandey (2009) (e=0.02) for similar
studies. Shannon Diversity Index ( H =0.99) was lower than that found by Tandan
(2008) ( H =3.21) and Pandey (2009) ( H =1.53). Pandey (2009) found the species
richness of 26.12, while it was also found to be lower (17.68) in the present study. All
these suggest that the diversity of plant species at shrub stratum was low as well. Of all
the species in the shrub stratum, Shorea robusta was found to be dominant with IVI
144.46, followed by Eupatorium odoratum with IVI 37.61. Thus, Shorea robusta is
highly dominant in shrub stratum also.
6.2.3 Herb Stratum
Thirty seven plant species were recorded in the herb stratum with a total density of
89512.20/ha, while Straede, et.al., (2002) found the density of plants at herb stratum to
be 1970000/ha and K.C (2007) found it to be 440833.33/ha, both being higher than that
in the present study. The lower density in present study may again be due to intense
grazing and, forest fire during dry season. Generally, the density of herbs is higher in
the areas with lower canopy coverage (less woody species) because they get better light
condition, higher nutrient availability and lower degree of competition (Shrestha et.
al.2006), but the in the present study hard wood species like Shorea robusta were
dominant. Shanon index of diversity was found to be 1.44, while Tandan (2008) and
Pandey (2009) found it to be 2.39 and 1.48 respectively, both being higher than that of
present study. Pandey (2009) found the evenness index to be 0.85 lower than that found
in the present study (e=0.92). The species richness (12.56) was found to be higher than
that found by Tandan (2008) and lower than Pandey (2009) which were 3.92 and 18.14
respectively.
In comparison to the shrub and tree stratum of the same study, herb stratum was found
to be more diverse. The species in the tree and shrub stratum had the higher dominance
index and lower diversity than in the herb stratum, which indicates the presence of few
55

dominant species in shrub and tree stratum which influence the whole community by
decreasing the evenness and diversity index.
6.2.4 Sustainable Yield of Tree Species, and the Forest Status
Calculation of annual forest yield showed that the forests were not storing enough
biomass and volume as expected for given forest types. The total standing volume and
biomass were found to be 36.28 m3/ha and 29.38 tons/ha, respectively. Pradhan (2002)
reported volume of 141.1 m3/ha and biomass of 165.9 tons/ha in mixed hardwood forest
of BZ forest of Bardia National Park. Shrestha, et.al., (2000) found volume and biomass
of natural Sal forest in Chitrepani of Makawanpur district to be 467 m
3
/ha and 807
tons/ha, respectively, and which were greatly higher compared to present study.
Similarly, average biomass as reported by HMG/N (1988a) of CDR (148.87 tons/ha)
was higher than the accumulated biomass in BZ community forests of Handikhola. The
low value in standing volume and biomass might be due to extensive lopping especially
the wet and green branches that create adverse effects on the growth potentials of
existing trees, their resistance to natural calamities, and the regeneration capacity of the
forest stock. The supply in terms of sustainability from the forest and demand of local
people showed that there was a huge deficit of sustainable fodder supply from the CFs
(Table 5.37). However, it is to be noted that a substantial part of fodder need is fulfilled
from private farm lands and range lands. There was a surplus of sustainable fuel wood
supply unlike the large deficit shown by the study of Dhakal (2007) and Pandey (2009).
The surplus of fuel wood supply might be owed to large forest area (2039.40 ha) and
also to the lower demand resulting from the use of biogas (12.86% HHs) and temporary
out-migration (8.47% of sample population).
Thirty one tree species were found to be in regenerating stage with a total of 728.66/ha.
Shorea robusta had the highest regeneration (Table 5.31). This is because Shorea
robusta continues to give up new shoots each year and is resilient to fire and
anthropogenic disturbances. Density of lopped trees and cut stump substantiated the
evidence of anthropogenic pressure on forests. The total density of lopped trees was
found to be 46.34/ha. Similarly, the study found that 25.38% of live trees had been cut
to remain as stump. Shorea robusta had the highest cut stump density (20.12/ha) among
all other tree species which suggested that it was most preferred species for cutting by
locals. This might be due to the high timber value of Shorea robusta. Majority of cut
56

stumps were in girth size of <12cm (CSD: 21.95/ha) which evidenced the unsustainable
harvesting practices.




57

CHAPTER: SEVEN
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusion
1. BZCFs, due to large area (2039.40 ha), fulfilled the fuel wood needs sustainably
but the fodder is largely undersupplied.
2. Fuel wood is the main source of energy, while some of the HHs used biogas
along with fuel wood.
3. Agriculture is of subsistence type probably due to low mean per capita land
holding which is yet aggravated by lack of irrigation facilities. In terms of social
well being, access to resources and livelihood, big farm holders are better off.
4. The tree density is low and Shorea robusta is the dominant species with highest
IVI, standing volume, biomass and sustainable fuel wood yield and, the highest
regeneration.
5. High Cut stump density (40.85/ha) shows substantial anthropogenic pressure in
the BZCFs.
6. The forests are not storing enough biomass and volume as expected for given
forest types. Forest fire during dry season, intense grazing round the year and
human settlements inside the BZCFs are the key factors for forest degradation.

7.2 Recommendation
1. Sustainable forest management training and regular monitoring of the BZCFs is
essential to control unsustainable harvesting practices and, due emphasis on
plantation of fodder species in marginal lands and even in BZCFs to increase
fodder availability.
2. Since agriculture is merely of subsistence type, alternative livelihood strategies
for marginalized and poor people could help uplift livelihood and economic
security.
3. Forming and strengthening Vigilance Unit and working with them alongside
might reduce illegal felling of trees.
4. Conservation education should be given to locals to reduce the anthropogenic
pressure on forests.
5. Grazing and forest fire should be controlled for the better regeneration of tree
species through regular monitoring.
58

REFERENCES
ADB, 2005. Nepal Regional Strategy for Development. Asian Development Bank.
NRM, working paper series, 3, Nepal Resident Mission.
Adhikari, B., Falco, S.D. and J.C. Lovett. 2004. Household Characteristics and Forest
Dependency: Evidence from Common Property Forest Management in Nepal.
Ecological Economics Vol. 48: 245-257.
Amend, S. and T. Amend. 1995. Balance Sheet: Inhabitants in National Parks An
Unsolvable Contradiction? In: National parks without people? (eds. S. Amend and T.
Amend). The South American experience (pp. 449469). Gland/Switzerland: IUCN.
Bajimaya, S. 2005. Participatory Conservation in Protected Areas of Nepal. In: People
and Protected Areas in South Asia (eds. Sharma, U.R. and P.B. Yonzon). Resources
Himalaya and World Conservation Union.
Basnet, P. 2007. Study on Community Forest and Socio-Economic Status of Gitanagar
User Committee of Buffer Zone Chitwan National Park, Nepal. M.Sc. Thesis, Central
Department of Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University
Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking Community Based Conservation. Conservation Biology,
Vol. 18(3): 621630.
Bhatta, S.R. 1994. Beginning with the Buffer Zone Management: A Case Study of Royal
Bardia National Park, Nepal. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. Agriculture University of
Norway, Norway.
Bhuju, D.R. 1984. Conservation Strategy in Nepal, 1951-1985, Michigan State
University, USA.
Bhuju, D.R. and P.B. Yonzon. 2004. Species Maintenance in A Dynamic landscape:
Ecology of the Churia (Siwaliks) in Nepal Himalaya. In: Annual Report of Pro natura
Fund 13:155-175.
Brandon K. and S. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks. World Development
20(4): 557570.
59

Branon, K., K.H. Redford and S.E. Sanderson. 1998. Parks in Peril: People, Politics and
Protected Areas. Washington DC, USA: The Nature Conservancy Press and Island
Press.
Brown, K. 2003. Integrating Conservation and Development: A Case of Institutional
Misfit. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment Vol. 1(9): 479-487.
Budhathoki, P. 2003. A Category V Protected Landscape Approach to Buffer Zone
Management. Parks 13: 22-30.
Carey, C., Dudley, N. and Stolton, S. 2000. Squandering Paradise? The Importance and
Vulnerability of World's Protected Areas (pp. 25). WWF-World Wide Fund for Nature
(Formerly World Wildlife Fund) International, Gland, Switzerland.
CBS. 2006. Statistical Pocket Book, Nepal. Central Bureau of Statistics, National
Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Cernea, M. and K. Schmidt-Soltau. 2006. Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy
Issues in Conservation and Resettlement. World Development 34(10):1808-1830.
Chakraborty, R.N. 2001. Stability and Outcomes of Common Property Institutions in
Forestry: Evidence from the Terai Region of Nepal. Ecological Economics Vol. 36:
341-353.
Chaudhary, R.P. 2000. Forest Conservation and Environmental Management in Nepal:
A Review. Biodiversity and Conservation Vol. 9: 1235-1260.
Christensen, J. 2003. Win-Win Illusion. Parks 14 (2): 34-41.
Devkota, S.R. 2005. Is Strong Sustainability Operational? An Example from Nepal.
Sustainable Development Vol. 13: 297-310.
DFRS/HMGN. 1999a. Forest and Shrub Cover of Nepal 1994. Department of Forest
Research and Survey, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conervation, Nepal, Publication no.
72.
DFRS/HMGN. 1999b. Forest resources of Nepal (1987-1998). Department of Forest
Research and Survey, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conervation, Nepal, Publication no.
74.
60

Dhakal, A. 2007. Status of Biodiversity Conservation and Vegetation in Kathar BZ
VDC, Chitwan National Park. M.Sc. Thesis, Central Department of Environmental
Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
DNPWC/PCP. 2003. Resource Profile of Parsa Wildlife Reserve and Proposed Buffer
Zone. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. HMGN/PCP/UNDP.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
DNPWC/PCP. 2006. Management Plan of Parsa Wildlife Reserve and its Buffer Zone.
Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. Kathmandu, Nepal.
DNPWC/PPP. 2000. Resource Profile of Royal Chitwan National Park and its Buffer
Zone. Department of National Park and Wildlife Conservation, Park and People
Program. HMG/N/PPP/UNDP Katmandu, Nepal.
Ebregt, A. and P.D. Greve. 2000. Buffer zones and their management. Policy and Best
practices fore terrestrial ecosystems in developing countries. Theme studies Series 5.
National Reference Centre for Nature Management ( ECLNV).
FAO, 2001. State of the Worlds Forests. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, Rome.
Fiallo, E.A. and S.K. Jacobson. 1995. Local Communities and Protected Areas:
Attitudes of Rural Residents Towards Conservation and Machalilla National Park,
Educador. Environmental Conservation, 22(3): 241-249.
FRSC, 1995. Forest Resources of Chitwan District. Forest Resource and Survey Centre,
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal. Publication No. 62
FSSD, 1991. Volume Equation and Biomass Prediction of Forest Trees of Nepal. Forest
Survey and Statistical Division. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu.
Nepal. Publication No. 47.
Gurung. T. 2007. Biogas, Saving Nature Naturally. Ecocircular, Vol. 42(7):1-8
Heinen Joel, T. and J.N. Mehta. 2000, Emerging Issues in Legal and Procedural aspects
of Buffer Zone Management With Case Studies From Nepal, Journal of environment &
Development, 9, No 1, pp: 45-67.
61

Heinen, J.T. 1993. Park- People Relations in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal : A
Socio-economic Analysis, Environmental Conservation, 20 (1).
Heinen, J.T. 1996. Human Behaviour, Incentives and Protected Area Management,
Conservation Biology 10(2):681-684.
Heinen, J.T. and S.K. Shrestha. 2006. Evolving Policies for Conservation: An Historical
Profile of the Protected Area System of Nepal. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management Vol. 49(1): 41-58.
Heinen, J.T. and Yonzon, P.B. (1994). A Review of Conservation Issues and
Programmes in Nepal: From a Single Species Focus toward Biodiversity Protections.
Mountain Research and Development 14 (1); 61-76.
HMG/N, 1988a. Forest Resource Information and Status and Development Plan. Master
Plan for the Forestry Sector of Nepal. His Majesty's Government of Nepal. Ministry of
Forests and Soil Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
HMG/N, 1988b. Main Report. Master Plan for the Forestry Sector of Nepal. His
Majesty's Government of Nepal. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.
Kathmandu, Nepal.
HMG/N. 1993. Fourth Amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
(2029) 1993. Nepal Gazette, 43 (Suppl.).
HMG/N. 1996. Conservation Area Management regulations of 2053 (1996). Nepal
Gazette Part 3, His Majesty's Government of Nepal.
HMG/UNDP. 1994. Parks and people project. Report No. NEP/94/001/A/01/99.
Kathmandu: UNDP.
Hutton, J and N. Leader-Williams. 2003. Sustainable Use and Incentive-Driven
conservation: Re-aligning Human and Conservation Interests. Oryx 37: 215-26.
ICIMOD. 1996. Bibliography on Biodiversity. International Centre for Inegrated
Mountain Development, Kathmandu.
62

Jnawali, S.R. 1989. Park-people Conflict: Assessment of Crop Damage and Human
Harassment by Rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis) in Sauraha Area Adjacent to the RCNP,
Nepal, Masters Thesis. Agriculture University of Norway, Norway.
Johannesen, A.B. and A. Skonhoft. 2005. Tourism, Poaching and Wildlife
Conservation: What Can Integrate Conservation and Development Project Accomplish?
Resource and Energy Economics 27: 208-226.
Joshi, S.1999. A Socio-Economic Analysis of Residents in the Buffer Zone of Royal
Chitwan National Park, M.Sc. Thesis. University of Minnesota, USA.
K.C, A. 2007. Understanding Biodiversity Conservation and Buffer Zone Vegetation in
Manohari BZ VDC, Chitwan National Park, M.Sc. Thesis. Central Department of
Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Karki, K. 2004. Effects of Deforestation on Tree diversity and Livelihoods of Local
Community: A Case Study from Nepal, Masters Thesis. Lund University International
Master's Programme in Environmental Science (LUMES).
Kent, M. and P. Coker. 1998. Vegetation Development and Analysis, A practical
Approach. John Wiley and Sons, New York City.
Maskey, V., Gebremedhin, T.G. and T.J. Dalton. 2006. Social and Cultural
Determinants of Collective Management of Community Forest in Nepal. Journal of
Forest Economics Vol. 11: 261-274.
Mishra, H.R. and M. Jefferies. 1991. Royal Chitwan National Park: Wildlife Heritage of
Nepal. King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Nagendra, H., M. Karmacharya. B. Karna. 2005. Evaluating Forest Management in
Nepal; Views Across Space and Time, Ecology and Society, 10(1):24.
Nepal, S.K. and K.E. Weber. 1993. Struggle for Existence: Park-people Conflict in the
Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, p. xxi,
199.
Odum, E.P. 1996. Fundamentals of Ecology. W.B. Saunders Company, USA.
63

Pandey, R. 2009. Buffer Zone Resources and Socioeconomic Perspective of
Conservation in Triveni Buffer Zone VDC, Chitwan National Park, M.Sc. Thesis.
Central Department Environmental Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Panta, M. 2009. Socioeconomic Perspective of Deforestation and Forest Degradation in
Nepa,. PhD Thesis. Department of Geoinformatic Engineering, INHA University,
Japan.
Paudel, N.S. 2006. Buffer Zone Management in Royal Chitwan National Park:
Understanding the Micro Politics. International and Rural Development, University of
Reading, RG6 6AL, United Kingdom.
Paudel, N.S., Budhathoki, P., and Sharma, U.R., 2007. Buffer Zones: New Frontiers for
Participatory Conservation? Journal of Forest and Livelihood 6(2) September, 2007.
Poudel, N. 2005. Building Capacity for Effective Protected Area Management in Nepal.
. In U.R. Sharma and P.B. Yonzon (eds.), People and Protected Areas in South Asia.
Resources Himalaya and World Conservation Union.
Poudyal, A. 2007. Does Buffer Zone Buffer Protected Areas? Habitat Himalaya, Vol.
14(1): 1-4.
Poudyal, A.S. 2000. Wildlife Corridor Management: Analysis of Biodiversity and
Socioeconomics in the Buffer Zone of RCNP, Nepal, M.Sc. Thesis. AIT School of
Environment, Resources and Development, Thailand.
Pradhan, N.M. 2002. Buffer Zone Management in Nepal: A Case Study in Bardia
National Park with Emphasis on Sustainable Use of Fuel Wood and Timber Resources,
M.Sc. Thesis. Agriculture University of Norway, Norway.
Quang, N.V. and S. Noriko. 2008. Forest Allocation Policy and Level of Forest
Dependency of Economic Household Groups: A Case Study in Northern Central
Vietnam. Small-scale Forestry 7: 4966.
Rajbhandari, K.R. 1994. A Bibliography of the Plant Science in Nepal. R.L.
Rajbhandari, Kathmandu.
Rijal, A. and H. Meilby. 2006. Is the Life Supporting Capacity of Forests in the Lower
Mid-Hills of Nepal Threatened? Kathmandu, Nepal.
64

Sayer, J. 1991. Buffer Zone Management in Rain Forest Protected Areas. Tiger paper,
xviii (4): 10-17.
Sekhar, N.U. 1998. Crop and Livestock Depredation Caused by Wild Animals in
Protected Areas: the Case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India, Environmental
Conservation, 25(2):160-167.
Shackleton, C.M., S.E. Shackleton, E. Buiten and N. Bird. 2007. The Importance of Dry
Woodlands and Forests in Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Alleviation in South Africa.
Forest Policy and Economics 9: 558 577.
Sharma, B.K. 1995. An Assessment of Crop Damage by Wild Animals and Depredation
of the wildlife due to the Activities of Local People in Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
M.Sc. Thesis. Central Department of Zoology, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Sherbinin, A.D. and M. Freudenberger. 1998. Migration to Protected Areas and Buffer
Zones: Can We Stem the Tide? Parks 8(1): 38-53.
Shrestha R., S.B. Karmacharya and P.K. Jha. 2000. Vegetation Analysis of Natural and
Degraded Forests in Chitrepani in Siwalik Region of Central Nepal. Tropical Ecology,
41(1): 111-114.
Shrestha, B.K., D.R. Dangol and K. Ghimire. 2006. Heterogeneity in Plant Population
and Species Diversity in Barandabhar Corridor Forest, Chitwan. Banko Jankari, 16(2).
Skonhoft, A. 1998. ''Resource utilization, Property Rights and Welfare - Wildlife and
the Local People'', Ecological Economics, 26: 67-80.
Spiteri, A. and S.K. Nepal. 2005. Incentive-Based Conservation Programs in
Developing Countries: A Review of Some Key Issues and Suggestions for
Improvements. Environmental Management, Vol. 37(1): 114.
Straede, S. and F. Helles. 2000. Park-people Conflict Resolution in Chitawan National
Park, Nepal: Buying Time High Cost? Environmental Conservation, 27(4):368- 381.
Strde, S. and T. Treue. 2006. Beyond Buffer Zone Protection: A Comparative Study of
Park and Buffer Zone Products' Importance to Villagers Living Inside Chitwan National
65

Park and to the Villagers living in its Buffer Zone. Journal of Environmental
Management, Vol. 78: 251-267.
Strde, S., Nobel, G. and A. Rijal. 2002. Structure and Floristic Composition of
Community Forests and their Compatibility with Villagers' Traditional Needs for Forest
Products. Biodiversity and Conservation, Vol.11: 487-508.
Studsord,J.E. and Wegge, P. 1995. Park People Relationships: A Case Study of
Damages Caused by Park Animals Around the Royal Bardiya National Park, Nepal.
Environment Conservation 22 (2): 133-142.
Subedi, G. 2010. Buffer Zone Resources, Livelihood and Community Level
Conservation: A Case Study from Jyamire Buffer Zone Community Forest, Manahari
VDC, Parsa Wildlife Reserve, M.Sc. Thesis. Central Department of Environment
Science, Tribhuvan University, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Sunderlin, W.D., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, P. Burgers, R. Nasi, L. Santoso and S.
Wunder. 2005. Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing Countries: An
Overview. World Development, 33(9): 13831402.
Tandan, P. 2008. Natural Resources Conservation and Sustainable Livelihood: A Case
Study from Parsauni Buffer Zone VDC, Chitwan National Park, Nepal, M.Sc. Thesis.
Central Department of Environmental Science, Tribuvan University, Kathmandu,
Nepal.
Terborgh, J., C.V. Schhaik, L. Davenport and M. Rao. 2002. Making Parks Work:
Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature. Washington D.C., USA. Island Press.
Thoms, C.A. 2008. Community Control of Resources and the Challenge of Improving
Local Livelihoods: A Critical Examination of Community Forestry in Nepal. Geoforum,
39: 14521465.
Timilsina, N., Ross, M.S. and J.T. Heinen. 2007. A Community Analysis of Sal (Shorea
robusta) Forests in the Western Terai of Nepal. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol.
241: 233-234.
66

Webb. E.L. and R.N. Sah. 2003. Structure and Diversity of Natural and Managed Sal
(Shorea robusta Gaertn. f.) Forest in the Terai of Nepal. Forest Ecology and
Management, 176: 337-353.
Wells M.P. and K.E. Brandon. 1993. The Principles and Practice of Buffer Zones and
Local Participation in Biodiversity Conservation. Ambio, 22: 157-162.
Wells, M.P. 1992. Biodiversity Conservation, Affluence and Poverty: Mismatched
Costs and Benefits and Efforts to Remedy Them. Ambio, 21(3): 237243.
Wells, MP. and T.O. McShane. 2004. Integrating Protected Area Management with
Local Needs and Aspirations. Ambio, 33(8): 513-519.
Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forest What Scope for Synergies?
World Development, 29(11): 1817-1833
Yonzon, P.B. 1999. Green-Green Over Fifty Percent Grey. Habitat Himalaya, Vol.
6(2): 1-4.
Yonzon, P.B. 2004. If Good Science is Expensive, Don't Try Jump Start. Habitat
Himalaya, Vol. 11(1): 1-4.
Yonzon, P.B. 2006. Understanding Biodiversity Conservation and VDC Buffer Zone.
Resources Himalaya Foundation.

i

ANNEX I
UNIT CONVERSION
Annex I-a Unit conversion for crop products
Particulars Local Unit un-milled (Muri) Standard unit (Kg)
Paddy 1 50
Maize 1 60
Wheat 1 69
(Source: Nepal & Weber, 1993)
Annex I-b Unit conversion for forest resources
Particulars Local unit (Bhari) Standard unit (Kg)
Fuel wood 1 40
Fodder 1 50
(Source: Nepal & Weber, 1993)
Annex I-c Livestock unit conversion
Livestock Livestock unit value
Cattle 0.65
Goat and sheep 0.18
Buffalo 0.81
(Source: Nepal & Weber, 1993)



ii

ANNEX II
Questionnaire for the socio-economic analysis of BZ Community of PWR
Date: ..
Name of the surveyor: .
GPS Location: 1. Latitude:
2. Longitude:
A. Household information
Respondent Name :
Caste\ethnic group :
Sex :
Age (yrs) :
Education :
Occupation :
Current address (ward) :
Residence period (year) :
Family structure: 1. Nuclear: ..
2. Joint:
B. Family Members
Full name
of
individual
Relation to
respondent
Sex Age
(years)
Marital
status
(M/U)
Occupation
1 2
3
Educaiton









C. Lavatory facility
a) Open/indiscriminate b) Simple latrine d) With Septic tank

iii

D. Farm size /Production
Ownership Area Irrigation
Type
Land type
Bigha Kathha Dhur
Own
Shared/
Tenant


1. What type of crop do you grow?
Crop Type Area Consumption
(Kg)
Surplus
(Kg)
Deficit
(Kg)
Deficit
Period
(Month)
Food
Crop
Wheat Bigha Kathha Dhur Muri
Paddy
Maize
Millet
Pulses
Cash
Crop
Vegetable



Oil seed
Others


2. What is the status of your production?
a) Surplus b) Deficit
3. If it is deficit, how do you manage for the deficit months?
Buy/Borrow/Barter/Wage/Labour/Others (Specify)
4. If surplus what do you do with the surplus crops?
Store/Sale/Others (Specify)
E. Livestocks Type and Holdings
Types of
animals
Numbers Stall
Feeding
Grazing Both



E. Fodder/fuel wood/Timber
Season/
Month
Fodder Fuel Wood Timber
Species Quantity Access Species Quantity Access Species Quantity Access


F. Alternative Energy
iv

Fill in the information about energy consumption (Record use for the each month,
Litre for kerosene, Number of Batteries, Bhari for fuel wood) (1 Bhari = 40 kg)
(Nepal & Weber 1993)
Source Amount Expenditure Season Remark
Kerosene
Electricity
Solar
Coal Chula
Battery
Others

1. Do you have biogas plant in your house?
a) Yes b) No
1.1 If Yes,
Date of installation Biogas
Capacity (m
3
) Expenditure



1.2 How have you installed the plant?
a) Myself b) Supported by NGO c) Supported by BZ office
d) Others (specify)
1.3 How many livestock are needed to operate your biogas plant?
.
1.4 How much fodder is required for livestock?

1.5 If you dont have biogas plants, what is the reason behind it?
..
1.6 Do you have any plans to install biogas plants?
.

G. Buffer zone Community Forest, Household Demand and Management Issues

1. Have you been involved in BZ management?
a) Yes b) No
2. If yes, what is/was your status (position) in Buffer Zone Management
Committee, UC, UG?
Date Group Status Relation with respondent



3. Which BZCF do you depend on?
..
4. What type of resources do you bring from your BZCF?
..
5. What do you say about your BZCF status?
a) Very good b) Good c) Satisfactory d) Bad
v

6. What was the condition of your BZ CF in the past/present?
a) Better than past b) Worsen than past c) No change

Resources Demand (Bhari) Supplied (Bhari) Deficit (Bhari)
Fodder
Fuel wood
7. Are available resources in your community forest fulfilling your demand?
a) Yes b) No

8. If No, How do you manage your demand?
a) Buy from BZ CF b) Buy from other CF c) From CNP d) Others
(specify)
9. Are there any kinds of resources allocation system in your BZ CF?
a) Yes b) No
10. If yes, on what basis?
a) Well Being b) Population c) No. of Livestock d) Profession e)
others
11. What sort of problems do you find in your CF?
..
12. What needs to be done for better management of your CF resources utilization
and conservation? Any suggestions/recommendations?

13. Is budget allocated by CNP for BZ is enough?
a) Yes b) No
H. Wildlife Related Issues
1. What are the different wild animals that enter into your field?
Name of Wild animals Season Damage/Loss



2. Crop damage caused by Wild animals/Wildlife
Wildlife Crop Time Of Damage Damage
amount
/Year in
local unit

amount (Rs)
Morning Day
time
Evening Night



3. Livestock Loss by Wild animals
Wildlife Livestock Number of
Losses
Time in Year
and month
Compensation
made by the
reserve



4. Are you provided with compensation measures for loss made by wildlife?
a) Yes b) No
5. How many wild animals you have observed into your area?
vi

Time Season/Month/Year Place Number of Wild
animals
Past Years

Recent Years

6. Do wild animals come every year in your area?
a) Yes b) No
7. How do you defense against Wild animals movement into your area?
Fence/Trench/Firing/Shouting/Any other..
8. What do you know about wild animals movement into your area?
Increasing/Decreasing/Remained the same/No idea
9. If decreasing/increasing, do you know why it is happening?
a) Natural death b) Habitat loss c) Killing (Poaching) c) Translocation d)
Others.
10. If poaching is the reason, do you know what types of people are involved in
poaching?
a) Poor/medium/rich b) Educated/Uneducated c) No idea

Name Address Involved Date




11. What kind of activities are/were done by BZCF/BZMC/park management to
stop wildlife poaching?

12. Do you think existing activities/policies/conservation practices have helped o
conserve wild life?
a) Yes b) No c) No idea
If no, what do you think what kind of activities/policies/conservation practices will
help to conserve wild animals?
************



vii

ANNEX III
SUSTAINABLE YIELD OF FUEL WOOD AND TIMBER
Tree species Annual stem
yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Annual
branch yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Annual
foliage
yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Sustainable
stem
supply
(Kg/ha/yr)
Sustainable
branch supply
(Kg/ha/yr)
Sustainable
Foliage supply
(Kg/ha/yr)
Sustainable
Fuel wood yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Sustainable
Timber yield
(Kg/ha/yr)
Shorea robusta 1106.72 378.18 73.08 996.05 340.36 65.77 1187.01 149.41
Pinus roxburghii 62.66 30.83 14.91 56.39 27.75 13.42 75.68 8.46
Schima wallichi 77.95 18.41 3.36 70.16 16.57 3.03 76.21 10.52
Lagerstroemia parviflora 54.73 30.90 3.03 49.26 27.81 2.73 69.68 7.39
Terminalia alata 37.23 18.70 2.09 33.51 16.83 1.88 45.31 5.03
Dellenia pentagyna 27.47 15.14 1.42 24.72 13.63 1.28 34.64 3.71
Terminalia bellirica 21.40 11.01 1.12 19.26 9.90 1.01 26.27 2.89
Semecarpus anacardium 13.13 6.47 0.78 11.82 5.82 0.70 15.87 1.77
Mallotus philippinensis 10.46 5.24 0.59 9.41 4.71 0.53 12.71 1.41
Elaegnus parviflora 10.42 5.30 0.56 9.38 4.77 0.51 12.74 1.41
Terminalia chebula 9.03 4.51 0.51 8.12 4.06 0.46 10.97 1.22
Careya arborea 7.47 3.77 0.41 6.72 3.39 0.37 9.11 1.01
Badkaulo* 6.97 3.51 0.39 6.28 3.16 0.35 8.49 0.94
Eugenia jambolana 4.62 2.33 0.26 4.16 2.09 0.23 5.63 0.62
Cleistocalyx operculatus 4.32 2.05 0.28 3.89 1.85 0.25 5.16 0.58
Phyllanthus emblica 2.24 1.45 0.27 2.01 1.31 0.25 3.02 0.30
Tiyari* 1.85 0.92 0.10 1.66 0.83 0.09 2.24 0.25
Airikath* 1.53 0.68 0.11 1.38 0.61 0.10 1.78 0.21
Albizia lucidor 1.50 0.67 0.11 1.35 0.60 0.10 1.75 0.20
Ficus auriculata 1.08 0.56 0.56 0.97 0.50 0.51 1.32 0.15
Premna integrifolia 1.30 0.58 0.10 1.17 0.52 0.09 1.52 0.18
Murraya koenigii 1.01 0.45 0.07 0.91 0.41 0.07 1.18 0.14
Holarrhena pubescens 0.51 0.23 0.04 0.46 0.20 0.03 0.59 0.07
Michelia champaca 0.44 0.20 0.03 0.40 0.18 0.03 0.51 0.06
Sapium insigne 0.42 0.19 0.03 0.38 0.17 0.03 0.49 0.06
Ficus lacor 0.36 0.16 0.03 0.32 0.14 0.02 0.42 0.05
Total 1466.82 542.43 104.25 1320.14 488.19 93.82 1610.30 198.02
viii

ANNEX IV
LIST OF PLANTS RECORDED IN THE SAMPLE PLOTS
S.N Species Local Name Habit Family
1 Ageratum conyzoides Linn. Raunne Herb Compositae
2 Albizia lucidor (Steudel) I. Neilson ex Hara Padke Tree Leguminosae
3 Alstonia scholaris (L.) R.Br. Chhatiwan Tree Apocynaceae
4 Artemesia vulgaris . Umbrosa Besser Titepati Shrub compositae
5 Asparagus racemosus Willd. var. subacerosus Baker Kurilo Herb Asparagaceae
6 Bauhinia vahlii Bhorla Climber Leguminosae
7 Bridelia retusa (L.) Spreng. Gaayo Tree Euphorbiaceae
8 Callicarpa macrophylla Vahl. Guenlo Shrub Verbenaceae
9 Careya arborea Roxb. Kumbhi Tree Lecythidaceae
10 Castanopsis inidica Roxb. Katus Tree Fagaceae
11 Centella asiatica (L.) Urb. Ghod tapre Herb Umbelliferae
12 Cheilanthes anceps Rani sinka Herb Pteridaceae
13 Cleistocalyx operculatus (Roxb.) Merr. & Perry Kyamuno Tree Myrtaceae
14 Clerodendron infortunatum auct.non Linn. Bhanti Shrub Verbenaceae
15 Clerodendrum viscosum Vent. Bhatte Shrub Verbenaceae
16 Colebrookea oppositifolia Lodd. Dhursilo Shrub Labiatae
17 Cyathula capitata Moq. Kuro Grass Amaranthaceae
18 Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. Dubo Grass Graminae
19 Cyperus compressus Linn. Mothe Grass Cyperaceae
20 Dellenia pentagyna Roxb. Tantari Tree Delleniaceae
21 Dendrocalamus strictus (Roxb.) Nees Bans Shrub Graminae
22 Desmodium laxiflorum DC. Dalle kuro Shrub Leguminosae
23 Digitaria spp. Banso Herb Poaceae
24 Dioscorea bulbifera Linn. Gittha Climber Dioscoreaceae
25 Eclipta prostrata Linn. Bhringaraj Herb Compositae
26 Elaegnus parviflora Wall. Guyelo Tree Elaeagnaceae
27 Engelhardtia spicata Leschen. Mauwa Tree Juglandaceae
28 Eugenia jambolana Lam. Jamun Tree Mytraceae
29 Eulaliopsis binata (Retz.) C.E. Hubbard Babiyo Grass Graminae
30 Eupatorium odoratum Linn. Ban mara Herb compositae
31 Ficus auriculata Lour. Nimaro Tree Moraceae
32 Ficus lacor Buch.-Ham. Kapro Tree Moraceae
33 Ficus semicordata Buch.-Ham. ex Sm. Khanyu Tree Moraceae
34 Flemingia macrophylla (Willd.) Merr. Bhatmase Shrub Leguminosae
35 Garuga pinnata Roxb. Dabdabe Tree Burseraceae
36 Holarrhena pubescens Buch.-Ham. Khasreto Tree Apocynaceae
37 Imperata cylindrica Siru Grass Graminae
38 Inula cappa (Buch.- Ham. ex D.Don) DC. Gaitihare Shrub Compositae
39 Lagerstroemia parviflora Roxb. Boddhangero Tree Lythraceae
40 Lyonia ovalifolia (Wall.) Drude Angeri Shrub Ericaceae
41 Maesa chisia Buch.- Ham. ex D.Don Bilaune Shrub Myricaceae
42 Mallotus philippinensis (Lam.) Mll.-Arg. Sindure Tree Euphorbiaceae
ix

43 Marsdenia tinctoria R. Br. Kalilahara Climber Asclepiadaceae
44 Michelia champaca Linn. Champ Tree Magnolianaceae
45 Mimosa pudica Linn. Lajjawati jhar Shrub Leguminosae
46 Murraya koenigii (L.) Spreng. Latikath Tree Rutaceae
47 Mussaenda frondosa Linn. Ashare Shrub Rubiaceae
48 Myrsine semiserrata Wall. Kalikath Tree Myrsinaceae
49 Oroxylam indicum (L.) Kurz Tatelo Tree Bignoniaceae
50 Oxalis corniculata Linn. Chari amilo Herb Oxalidaceae
51 Phoenix humilis (Royle Fam.) Thakal Shrub Palmae
52 Phoenix spp. Dhotishara Shrub Palmae
53 Phyllanthus emblica Linn. Amala Tree Euphorbiaceae
54 Phyllanthus parvifolius Buch.-Ham. ex D.Don Khareto Shrub Euphorbiaceae
55 Pinus roxburghii Sarg. Khote salla Tree Pinaceae
56 Piper longum Linn. Pipla Climber Piperaceae
57 Pogonatherum paniceum (Lam.) Hackel Muse khar Grass Graminae
58 Pogostemon benghalensis (Burm.f.) Kuntze Rudilo Shrub Lamiaceae
59 Premna integrifolia Linn. Mant. Gineri Tree Verbanaceae
60 Psidium guajava Linn. amba Tree Myrtaceae
61 Rubus paniculatus Smith Ainselu Shrub Rosaceae
62 Saccharum spontaneum Linn. Kaans Herb Graminae
63 Sapium insigne (Royle) Benth. ex Hook.f. Khirro Tree Euphorbiaceae
64 Schima wallichi (DC.) Korth. Chilaune Tree Theaceae
65 Semecarpus anacardium L.f. Bhalayo Tree Anacardiaceae
66 Shorea robusta Gaertn. Sal Tree Dipterocarpaceae
67 Smilax zeylanica Linn. Kukurdaino Climber Smilaceae
68 Spermadictyon suaveolens Roxb. Bhui champa Shrub Rubiaceae
69 Sporobolus diander (Retz.) Beauvois Ghodeghas Herb Graminae
70 Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels (Eugenia jambolana Lam.) Jamun Tree Myrtaceae
71 Syzygium spp. Farim Tree Myrtaceae
72 Terminalia alata Heyne ex Roth Asna Tree Combretaceae
73 Terminalia bellirica (Gaetn.) Roxb. Barro Tree Combretaceae
74 Terminalia chebula Retz. Harro Tree Combretaceae
75 Thysanolaena maxima (Roxb.) Kuntze amriso Herb Graminae
76 Thysanolaena maxima (Roxb.) Kuntze Amriso Herb Graminae
77 Trachelospermum lucidum (D.Don) K.Schum Barile lahara Climber Apocynaceae
78 Typha angustata Khar Herb Typhaceae
79 Walsura trijuga Roxb. Aankhataruwa Tree Meliaceae
80 Wendlandia puberula Kaiyo Tree Rubiaceae
81 Woodfordia fruticosa (L.) Kurz Dhayero Tree Lythraceae
82 Xeromphis spinosa (Thunb.) Keay Maidalu kanda Shrub Rubiaceae
83 (?) Airikath Tree

84 (?) Bad kaulo Tree

85 (?) Bhogate Shrub Compositae
86 (?) Chitre banso Herb

87 (?) Chulthe ghas Grass

88 (?) Furke Herb

x

89 (?) Gund Tree

90 (?) Haatkatuwa Herb

91 (?) Khasre unyu Herb

92 (?) Kumale Herb

93 (?) Nywal junge Herb

94 (?) Salim khar Grass

95 (?) Shyal dhoti Shrub

96 (?) Tiyari Tree

97 UK S1

Shrub compositae
98 UK S2 Shrub Labiatae
UK S refers to unidentified shrub species

xi

ANNEX V
GPS POINTS OF VEGETATION SAMPLE PLOTS
S.N. Longitude Latitude
1 27.40466997 84.90381017
2 27.39953049 84.90343283
3 27.39658791 84.90408384
4 27.39221855 84.90245878
5 27.38991457 84.89653091
6 27.40205769 84.89768887
7 27.39493028 84.89203538
8 27.42036139 84.91514318
9 27.40996783 84.92066367
10 27.41144353 84.92701524
11 27.41286817 84.92096295
12 27.39550005 84.91822081
13 27.37594674 84.91291664
14 27.41508315 84.9226924
15 27.40336968 84.93697335
16 27.40135291 84.92964607
17 27.38774609 84.92399167
18 27.39646676 84.92676371
19 27.39477349 84.92664588
20 27.38553861 84.92337396
21 27.3944987 84.92361689
22 27.40022916 84.93107781
23 27.39477349 84.92664588
24 27.38120814 84.93115631
25 27.37621483 84.93177016
26 27.38855106 84.93942428
27 27.37827653 84.93281227
28 27.39399197 84.93882857
29 27.38955536 84.9336762
30 27.37860059 84.94048512
31 27.38552575 84.94198598
32 27.38655073 84.93017364
33 27.41433657 84.9140489
34 27.38937504 84.91243154
35 27.38614781 84.90509011
36 27.39159247 84.90989048
37 27.38841437 84.9041022
38 27.40828795 84.95352912
39 27.41494608 84.95657146
40 27.41042595 84.95424776
41 27.41115957 84.95318096